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

[Country_Bumpkin]

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.

Of course the entrenched powers were resistant. When has this ever not been the case? Are we surprised that the people benefiting the most from a system are the least apt to want to get rid of it? Or that the people most vocal about getting rid of it are people who don't have money tied up in it (or worse, the people who've already made their money from it)?

The great thing about this country, though, is that entrenched powers can't guarantee that they'll stay entrenched. A mid-term election could sway the balance of power toward the more progressive-minded, allowing legislation to start passing that begins the process.

Again, I'm not saying it would have been an easy fight, or a fast one. I'm saying there's a possibility that a gradual phasing-out of slavery would have allowed a smoother transition for both the South's economy and for those people being freed.

We'll never know, I suppose. I am mostly concerned with combating the pernicious myth that the Civil War wasn't mostly about slavery. But I would note that it took over a century for free blacks in the South to actually achieve most of their civil rights, so I'm not sure how much more gradual the transition could possibly be. It wasn't just rich whites who were enforcing Jim Crow. Poor whites had more to gain from putting someone else on the bottom of the totem pole. At the risk of sounding fatalistic, I think the die was cast for the United States when we backed out of slowly eliminating slavery back in the early days of the republic, when Southerners were still ambivalent about the institution. After that, violence and pain were pretty much guaranteed.

As the good President said: "Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said 'the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.'"

 

[snowbear]

Oh they tried to teach it to us, but we didnt care and didnt listen. So they taught us the cool stuff instead, like the Romans, Greeks, Vikings, Tudors, and don't forget the dinosaurs rawrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!

 

[SleepingDragon]

There was a guy who moved to my town from the UK in my 12th grade European History course and my teacher asked him this question. He said the American Revolution is just skimmed over because there is so much other material to cover. Due to this, I would assume the British aren't bitter about the revolution or it wasn't important enough to teach in detail (please correct me if I'm wrong). Either way I'm glad our countries have been able to put the past behind us and become strong allies.

 

[Edith The Hutt]

As a 30ish year old Englishman I can't recall being taught about the English Civil War [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War] during my education. I had to go find out for myself.

On the other hand we did cover in quite some detail on Vietnam conflict [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade].

Pre-GCSE (14-16 year old education when I were a lad) we also covered the Stuarts [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Britain].

There might be more but I'm not remembering it. The Gunpowder Plot [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_plot] probably featured a few times.

In conclusion, while I didn't have a single lesson about the Cuban Missile Crisis [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party].

As for the American Wars of Independance, I mainly learned that from Sid Meier [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sid_Meier%27s_Colonization]

 

[thatreynoldsman]

In England we never covered the AWoI at any time in my compulsory schooling. As far as I recall there was perhaps 1 or 2 paragraphs in the all of the history textbooks that were about the AWoI. Even now in college I take history, politics, geography and sociology and there are no topics about the AWoI whatsoever. A English university course like 'American History' would probably have an entire unit about the AWoI, but I think in general, to learn about the AWoI in England you probably have to take a higher educational course that would specifically include that kind of thing. Certainly the earliest you would hear about it is in college, if you seek out a specialised subject based around international/colonial history or history around that precise era.

 

[technoted]

In general we don't tend to cover it that much over here in England unless of course we choose to actually learn more about the topic at later years of education. Personally though I looked into it out of interest in my own free time and what bugs me is how what a lot of Americans seem to actually know about the whole revolution was "America killed all the British and won.". Quite a lot don't seem to understand that it wasn't just America against Britain, and the amount of people who have even gotten angry at me saying that the casualties on the American side were significantly greater than the British. But then again when America seems to get involved in a war everyone else seems to be completely missing unless they're the ones who lose to America...

 

[Dastardly]

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.

 

[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.

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? :/

 

[rapidoud]

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

Well, considering it was one of the first, if not the first, revolution that led to the end of European imperialism in the Western Hemisphere and independence in at least most of its countries, as well as kickstarting the French Revolution, I wouldn't chalk it up to arrogance to wonder how or if it's taught in the countries directly involved.

You make it sound like your country is the king of all others and the reason anything happens?

 

[Iklwa]

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

Well, considering it was one of the first, if not the first, revolution that led to the end of European imperialism in the Western Hemisphere and independence in at least most of its countries, as well as kickstarting the French Revolution, I wouldn't chalk it up to arrogance to wonder how or if it's taught in the countries directly involved.

You make it sound like your country is the king of all others and the reason anything happens?

I didn't think that's how it came across, and if it did that's not how I meant it. What I was trying to say is that no matter where you come from it was a big event worldwide and I think it's more curiosity than arrogance to wonder if and how it's taught in one of the countries directly involved.

 

[Country_Bumpkin]

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.

Oddly enough, most of the Confederates at the time seem to have disagreed with you on this point, and were quite proud of it. They didn't think they were on the losing side of history, so the defense of slavery is all over their founding documents. This business about how it was really all about other things and how the federal government was mean to them anyway doesn't start cropping up until after Reconstruction. You're telling a story that the actual actors didn't even agree with. After all, going into the war, most Confederates were convinced they would easily beat the North. How could they think that and simultaneously be under the heel of the supposedly powerful Federal government? It takes balls to start a war to preserve a slave-holding, agrarian society in the face of industrialization, lose, spend 100 years trying to preserve state-sponsored racism, and then turn around and complain that the North was really the aggressor.

I quote from South Carolina's secession proclamation:

"We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection." (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp)

 

[Warforger]

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.

Um Vietnam is thoroughly studied more then say the Korean war. However something that isn't studied too much is the Phillipine-American war as well as the Monroe Doctrine, if you take a normal history class they'll pass by as something not really needed due to being not that important, but in a AP history class they get away with talking so much crap about how the US screwed up Latin America and the Phillpines.

Basically if you don't know, when the Americans took over the Philippines they wanted to to push the natives aside and ignore that they exist, much like they did with the Native Indians, and then put alot of white people there much like they did in Hawaii and the British in Australia and New Zealand, and make it a US state. Of course the Philippine American war was disastrous, much like a Vietnam of its day, and very few whites came in to settle because there wasn't much attraction to do so. And so, they kept control until they finally gave the country independence.

As for Latin America, while they gave Cuba independence after the Spanish-American war they controlled basiclly all contact it had with the outside world with the Platt Amendment and planned to harvest it for all the sugar it can give, they constantly occupied Haiti and the Dominican Republic again harvesting them for all the suger they can give, a huge one is Guatemala, where the United Food Company IIRC was just tormenting the country, a new government came in and threatened it, it called in the USA calling the new government Communist and bam US military operations took down the government and re-established the old one which supported the United Food Company.

 

[duchaked]

If I were a teacher in the UK, I'd just be like "huh what? the American War for Independence? uhhh yeah they got their independence as you can tell. dummy. moving on..."

loll jk but this is an interesting question. I had a teacher who's family line came from the British (his last name WAS Howe...hmmm) and he jokingly said his family was in the war...but that they don't talk about it much "cuz we lost" lol funny guy, miss having him as a teacher

 

[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.

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.

 

[AdumbroDeus]

Yeah the war of independence really isn't a big deal in the UK and we simply don't study it at all.

You have to see it through our eyes.

At the time of the revolution we were busy owning practically everything in the world that was worth owning. We were fighting practically everywhere constantly from about 1700 through to 1900 and while we lost a few we won most.

So while the revolution was clearly a big deal for America since you're history is kinda pathetically short and you've flourished so much since, as far as our culture is concerned, it was a tiny unimportant conflict in an unimportant colony for us.

When we study that period of histroy (late 1700's onwards) we look at the French revolution and the Napoleonic wars and not much else.

Oh and I second that we study Vietnam (and Korea come to that) in terms of 'What the hell were they thinking', which tbh is the only accurate way.

Frankly this strikes me as very wierd.

Frankly losing colonial dominance in North America is a really big deal. What it should be taught as is "GB loses to France in a big way and loses North America, also the colonies gain independence". Also it should be referenced as a starting point to the eras of independence (obviously the Napoleonic wars are a great deal more important but still it's important to note that America's independence definitely made it more viable).

Speaking of which, my world history courses never touched that war (except as America's independence being treated similarly to how I suggested above for France's revolution, and my american history courses touched on it as only a footnote. That is a grievous oversight in our educational system because GB vs France in that war WAS very important and needed more attention.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

So do they teach the American Revolution in the Uk as an English civil war with the English fighting the English or not?

Nah they were fighting colonists. Those filthy, filthy colonists...wait, I'm one of them.

That is the funny thing to me, I have heard people from the UK talk about the colonists as if they are like completely different from them, when they are actually all English and have the same history. LOL

Well not really. I mean, when we decide to break off and form our own country you kind of have to stop refering to yourself by the old name.

I don't know, maybe because I am Native American I still view them as English invaders. LOL

TV shows of the revolution tend to try and differentiate the British and the US colonists as much as possible. That is why the US characters have modern US accents, and the British have modern British accents, even though they would have both sounded fairly similar at the time. Most annoying is when Thomas Paine gets given a heavy American accent by tea-party guys, ignoring the fact that Thomas Paine was born in the UK (and that Paine actually like liberal policies).

I find it odd how many still try to take away from the fact that it was the English fighting the English. The whole "us vs them" thing. It was a war where family members were fighting each other, choosing sides against one another, and still to this day they attempt to divide them as one people.

Americans and English have a common history, though you constantly find them trying to disown one another. LOL

Many English say," Well we have all this other history.." and fail to realize that Americans study that same history, because it was their history as well and those they were fighting with and against could very well be distant relatives of many still residing in Britain to this day.

From the way some talk, you would think it was a war that didn't involve the British people turning against one another at all.

 

[zehydra]

I'd guess that its covered like the Haitian Revolution is covered here. Major players are covered and it's lumped with other revolutionary movements during the era.

I would assume not like Vietnam isn't mentioned that much in American. Plain and simple, losses aren't elaborated on.

Erm, Vietnam is thoroughly covered in every History class I've taken since I was little. Hell, I know McNamara like the back of my hand. Yes, I live in America.

What's funny is that its pretty much barely covered in AP US over where I live, but thoroughly examined in Non-Ap US history (mainly because non-Ap is spread over two courses).

So the really bright (or cheater) kids get less education on Vietnam at my high school.

 

[Vandenberg1]

Alot of WW2 veterans are pissed that Japan doesn't recognize the Baton Death March nor the Rape Of Nan King... Its like the whole country just thinks of little idiotic fucking panda bears and Hentai...But god damn it Cowboy Bebop and Hellsing are just so bad ass... They did make Godzilla as a response to being nuked.

 

[SpectralAnomaly]

I don't recall learning much about it, it was probably an option, but teachers decided we should learn something less interesting.

My knowledge of it is the English won every battle except for the one that mattered. That's probably a really wrong over-simplification so i'm gonna have a good look around on the internet about what actually happened.