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

[BuGGaTon]

It seems that no Brit has mentioned a very good reason why it isn't taught in our schools. It's taught in USA because it's the birth of their country. Our country right now consists of England and Scotland (the two major kingdoms that formed to become and remain to be the United Kingdom), Northern Ireland (part of some serious and bloody very recent and very old history) and Wales.

We're taught about 1066, when the country became a very recognisable "England" with a proper historical succession of monarchs; the crusades, a very important (historically) religious war against the Muslims in the middle east; the English civil war, the war of the roses, the 100 years war (that's 180 years worth of war right there) and WW1+WW2. So mostly we concentrate on the bits of history that shaped our country and affected the world the strongest.

I'm sorry that a small (by comparison) war across the Atlantic doesn't make it onto that list but the English alone have 700 years of history in Europe, Great Britain and Ireland alone. Not to mention all the Scottish and Irish history I wasn't taught about because I was brought up in England. We also get taught a lot about Roman, Nordic and Greek history because it predates our own county's origins. There's a huge amount of history to be taught right there :/

 

[thylasos]

It isn't.

And from what I hear, it's a very idealised version taught in the States.

It depends entirely on what modules and what exam board you're going with, which tends to be a tactical decision your school takes, and even then you'll only encounter it at A-level, as far as I'm aware.

We tend to talk about our own civil war rather more reliably.

 

[winginson]

Did up to GCSE history. It was never mentioned on curriculum, although the cool history teacher we had explained it briefly when we did slavery, because someone asked how come the UK didn't own America in civil war times.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

We tend to talk about our own civil war rather more reliably.

Rather more, but we do tend to enhance certain qualities.

(Guy Fawkes was a Catholic who wanted to bring back the Church ruling the State, not an Anarchist. )

Equally I doubt the Japanese Concentration camps in America are taught in their history.

Russia's view of World War 2 rarely even mentions the States or the Europeans Allies.

 

[Cpt Corallis]

In Northern Ireland, we study the impact of Mainland Britain on the Island of Ireland and only cover the basics of American History.
But as a point of Comparison between:
British Military Involvement with America: War of Independence (1775-1783) War of 1812 (1812-1815)
British Military involvement with just Ireland, discounting Scotland and Wales: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Rebellion (This also fails to mention the Military equipment that the British sent to the Irish Government during the Civil War )

America does not figure as importantly as Local history.

Out of Interest, How does the curriculum in the rest of the UK treat Ireland? I only ask because in the years 1875-1925, Ireland is constantly getting in the way of British Political affairs, and I would like to know how this is covered.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Out of Interest, How does the curriculum in the rest of the UK treat Ireland? I only ask because in the years 1875-1925, Ireland is constantly getting in the way of British Political affairs, and I would like to know how this is covered.

From England, as you'll probably expect, we get a brief covering of the Provos. The Troubles aren't even explained. The Navvys are quite well talked about though, but only in relation to rail/roads.

 

[The_Fezz]

Not very well, it's more a thing we acknowledge rather than study.

 

[baddude1337]

Its usually summed up like this "America wanted independence, they got it".

Not really touched upon too much, which is a shame really :/ generally they try to focus on the important stuff though

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.

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.

Pretty much this. It's amazing when you get the smug Americans who think they single-handedly won the war, without counting in Frances help and the fact that most of the battles fought were draws.

 

[Woodsey]

I've wondered this before. I also wonder how World War 2 and the Holocaust are covered in Germany.

Used to be not at all, until student campaigned in the 90's to have it taught to them, they deserved to know.
Now if only England could own up to its mistakes... It'd be nice to have work houses taught to us in a more comprehensive manner... rather than...

They were too me. I spent a year on workhouses at GCSE. They're boring as fuck by the way.

OT: Its not. My knowledge from it is because I've just done the French revolution at AS.

I do British history next year so maybe it'll get covered more then.

 

[electric_warrior]

Here's your history lesson.

December 7th, 1941 was the beginning of full U.S. involvement. We single-handedly (with some very poorly executed, basically ineffective help from our European allies) defeated the Empire of Japan. Four days after the Pearl Harbor attack, we declared war on Germany and Italy.

In addition to our war against the Japanese, who happened to have a very powerful and experienced Navy at the time, we conducted operations in North Africa, and continued a steady stream of materiel shipments to Britain.

It didn't take long for America to roll into Italy and put an end to their involvement in the war. A mostly American force swept Sicily in 1943 and worked its way up Italy quite handily.

And of course, upon the D-day invasion, America became the majority of the allied fighting power in the western front.

There's a hell of a lot more, but I likely already lost you.

Of course, as a nation blissfully outside the war you didn't have to suffer the damage to your infrastructure from bombs and fighting that everyone else did. In addition to this, your size and the fact you hadn't been fighting a war for the past few years meant you had a bit of an advantage over us Brits, who had been fending off the Germans on our own for two years at that point as every other country in Europe got invaded.

In any case, yes, you were largely responsible for Italy, but the British were the key players in defeating Rommel in North Africa and the Soviets, in actuality, did most of the work in repelling the Nazi forces in the East and severely weakening their army. If Hitler hadn't invaded Russia and pissed off Stalin, they probably would have won the war. If you disagree, just consider the fact that 4.4 MILLION Axis soldiers died in the Eastern Campaign alone, and they didn't even win. This was a crippling blow for the Axis, especially Germany, and turned the tide of the war. Equally, while you guys did most of the work in the Pacific, I would hardly characterise the allied involvement as minor. The European involvement was minor, due in no small part to the sheer geographical impairment of being many thousands of miles away, but you forget about Australian and Chinese involvement, which was instrumental in beating the Japanese.

Your description of the Italian campaign is exactly the sort of thing we object to. British and allied involvement in the invasion of Italy was just as important as that of the Americans and if you look, our eighth army was bigger (or at least no smaller) than your fifth. I am no world war two scholar, so I don't know that much about actual impact of these forces, but in terms of numbers we were just as involved as you. Equally, the US forces on D-day numbered roughly 70,000, and the British/Canadian forces numbered 80,000 (60,000 of whom were British). I would hardly characterise this as a mostly American operation. It was very much a joint effort, do not downplay the role of everyone else.

What it comes down to is that without you we wouldn't have had a hope in hell, but do you really think that, if we had fallen and all of Western Europe (and most of Eastern Europe) had been taken, you would have stood a chance against the Japanese and the Axis powers on your own had they decided to take you on? You needed us to win the war, we just needed you more. The only arena you deserve most of the credit as you give yourselves in is the Pacific, everywhere else you were a valuable part of a team and not the star player, striding to victory with us hitching a ride on your back.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Out of Interest, How does the curriculum in the rest of the UK treat Ireland? I only ask because in the years 1875-1925, Ireland is constantly getting in the way of British Political affairs, and I would like to know how this is covered.

From England, as you'll probably expect, we get a brief covering of the Provos. The Troubles aren't even explained. The Navvys are quite well talked about though, but only in relation to rail/roads.

We did do the troubles in English lessons, our teacher was a british soldier there and we had a first hand source of the troubles.

May have just been the era, I was taught History back in the 80s. Equally we didn't get taught about India/Poland, though I guess that's far more prevalent these days.

 

[googleback]

You see I think that's a shame, as others have mentioned, learning from history is more important than just learning history. in any country there seems to be this method of just talking about the victories and what makes your country look great... in truth we should learn about what war really does to a nation and the world.

For example, I think learning about post Vietnam would probably help the young ones cope with things like Iraq and Afghanistan in a mature way.

Oh I definitely agree (though I assume you meant to quote one of my other posts, as the one you did was talking about McCarthy instead of 'Nam). I really wish they had spent more time on the ramifications of Vietnam, as well as more of the reasons behind it past "Communism is bad, mmkay?"

They don't though, and it makes me sad.

Yeah, clicked the wrong one haha. all fixed now!
the real issue with that, I'm sad to say are things like this;

the second you even murmur "consequences of war" in the states... SOMEONE jumps on you like this xenophobic disgrace...

The term "not a perfect world" has never been so true. And its a damn shame.

 

[Nikolaz72]

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

Umm...not really. It was sort of a big deal. To actually go against a major power and win wasn't really all that common of an occurance. It also seems like it's be something of an important thing to learn about considering that a lot of people consider it to be the turning point in colonialization and whatnot. Not to mention the fact that we fought the British again not a whole hell of a lot later in the War of 1812. It's a legitimate question.

Didnt Moscow manage beat the Golden Horde? I dont think the Mongolians learn too much of that either (Dont even think the Russians learn that much about it either). And if you say thats too far back, its only like a couple of hundreds of years before the War for independance and it had a very large effect on a lot of countries. (Bad example, gotta find a better one)

Buttomline is. Its important for America. But contrary to what you believe. Going against a major power and winning has happened in Europe before.. One, two, three. Several times. And we dont really learn about any of them because all those are the actual countries there are today. Lets take an example... Dutch is taught about how they earned their independance with William van Oranje (Dunno if that was spelt right) Against Spain. But Spain had so many of their regions earn independance that teaching that in school would pretty much cover up every history class in 9 grades. If you want to learn about it, you can read about it. All History is interresting, and if you cant be bothered to read about it in your freetime. Then it sucks to be you doesnt it?

 

[Ilikemilkshake]

Here in Scotland (or at least the shitey school i went to) Our history lessons comprised of mainly of watching Braveheart, which is unfortunate seeing as most of the film is fictitious

 

[LaughingJester]

I've wondered this before. I also wonder how World War 2 and the Holocaust are covered in Germany.

. . . I was told that it is very taboo to even mention the word Nazi in germany

 

[Brightzide]

Sorry dude, cant say I've ever been taught anything about it in school. All I know is from that Mel Gibson film...Patriot? I think thats it...Wait, is that even about the right war?

 

[willsham45]

What do Americans get taught about the Tudors and Stuarts and all that lot.
Why do you amuse it is taught?