look i know you guys got a lot of rebellions when those uppity colonies demanded "rights" but most of them were important parts in history. I know we covered the independence of India, the boxer rebellion, and other important moments in world history.Anearion616 said:
How is the American War for Independance taught in the UK?
- Thread starter spectrenihlus
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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.Anearion616 said:
Yes, that was more or less my experience, though at the same time they managed to talk a lot about our own history. Which I think is a genuine accomplishment considering how little of it there is. Personally as a Canadian I think all of our history prior to confederation is incredibly dull, with the exception of the Battle of the plains of Abraham (full points if any non-Canadians have ever heard of it) and the War of 1812.WaaghPowa said:
Honestly you can only talk about trading companies, fur trappers, and gold mining for so long.
Perhaps he's saying that assuming that Britain had plans for the entirety of America to be colonized under their rule. Not sure though. I don't get how anyone could possibly think that all of America was immediately colonized.SmileyBat said:
I don't know about you but my history class covered Vietnam in depth. Mainly focused on how big of a fuck up it was.LinwoodElrich said:
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.
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.LinwoodElrich said:
The original colonies were over four times the size of England. And yes, England had control of taxes, and thus a certain control of the country. If they didn't have a certain amount of control then that whole "We want independence" kick would have been over relatively quick.SmileyBat said:
WTF? How the hell is it arrogant to think a piece of history be mentioned. And since it INVOLVED England, then why wouldn't it at least be mentioned. Typical wherever the hell you are from smugness of being an ass.Anearion616 said:
Honestly, just from eyeballing this map:SmileyBat said:
http://www.nationsonline.org/maps/political_world_map3000.jpg
The 13 colonies area looks at least 3 times larger than the UK area.
And according to wikipeida, US total area is about 40 times larger than the UK. (EDIT: 40 times as they exist today)
How the hell does his statement suggest any of that? He never said that the US has been this size forever, just that the UK lost a great deal of its colonial holdings when we got our independence. Personally, I would think that it would be a big topic in British history. Don't they teach about the Indian movement for independence?SmileyBat said:
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.
For me it wasn't and the same with many other people I know but I'm glad to hear they teach it somewhere. As for the 'territory' comment I guess I should have elaborated. At the time yeah it wasn't very large but if we're talking in time period it was still several times larger than Britain.Internet Kraken said:
However, what I meant was that a rebellion that lead to a country which is NOW more than four times larger seems important to at least the country that spawned it if not most countries in the world. The ultimate point is that a civil war of that scale for Britain should more than be important enough for that country to remember, not just us.
Actually... As an American, i wonder if they talk about it more as AMERICA rebelling, or France just doing there thing and America making a small thorn in their side they really didnt need at that point.comadorcrack said:
I know we like ot think that we "beat" the UK, but without France occupyinh britian in the home land, we'd have been screwed.
I gotta say that that statement coupled with your avatar pic made me laugh pretty hard.Thomas Guy said:
Also I agree. I am not American but it's not much of a leap to say that the American War of Independence had a major impact on global history (have you heard of the US? I am guessing you have.) And in England's case it was indeed a major loss of territory and prestige, they had only just gained control of Quebec from the French with the aid of the thirteen colonies.
not sure if troll or just bigoted...Anearion616 said:
How is being curious about how others were taught about a part of history where a world power ie England, had part of its sphere of influence and territory break away ie the colonies, being arrogant?
OT: I have actually been curious of how most history is taught from other view points. Like how is the Cold War taught in Russia, how is the Pacific theater of war in WWII taught in Japan. All these things would be interesting to know.
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.
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.
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...theonlyblaze2 said:
Can't speak for the U.K, but here in Aus, we don't even mention in. If it is mentioned, its more as a 'America was a colony of England, like we are, and then they decided to fight for their independance'. Most of what I know is from movies and private research.
We barely even learn about our own history, we spend maybe 1 year on it in primary school. To be fair, we don't have a lot of history yet either though...
We barely even learn about our own history, we spend maybe 1 year on it in primary school. To be fair, we don't have a lot of history yet either though...