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

[Layzor]

It isn't, at least in compulsory education. We only learn about the two World Wars and 1066, rinse and repeat every year.

 

[Ranorak]

William van Oranje (Dunno if that was spelt right)

You did.

OT: As a dutchy, we our selves had a fair share of colonies.
And as I recall, we didn't learn much about their independence.
Well, maybe a bit about Indonesia. But that's mostly because there IS a lot of talk about the VOC (Dutch East India Company)

...then again... "It was the first multinational corporation in the world and the first company to issue stock. It was also arguably the world's first megacorporation, possessing quasi-governmental powers, including the ability to wage war, imprison and execute convicts, negotiate treaties, coin money, and establish colonies."

So did you learn about the Dutch colonization of the Congo, as I recall that's an event that many modern Dutch historians want to forget.

As I recall, I didn't.

Note: This doesn't say much, I wasn't exactly a model student back in the day.
And the fact that it has been a good 8 years or so

You know, I'll ask around and see what others around me know about this. I'll get back to you.

 

[FightThePower]

It's not taught at all.

I'm pretty sure the entire time period isn't taught, at least I was never taught anything from then. I was taught the Middle Ages, The Victorians, then once that's done we move straight onto Modern History - starting with the Russian Revolution, then WW1, WW2, Vietnam and the Cold War.

 

[Hosker]

Do you learn about the English War of Independence over in the states? I think not

(Parliament vs King Charles for those who were wondering, with Oliver Cromwell becoming England's first Prime Minister)

Ex-colonies are generally not taught presumably because it was a loss. We did, however, get to learn about all the wars against communism that the yanks failed at (Korea and Vietnam) and the road to WW2, and both of the world wars themselves. Actually come to think of it, anything that happened before the 20th century seems to only be covered in primary school .....

That's called the English Civil War.

OT: we never really did about foreign policy much; it was always about things happening here.

 

[Auron225]

Its not. For me in school anyway, it was never covered in history.

 

[brendonnelly]

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...

I don't know when you went to School, but in NSW, year 9 and 10 of History are both Australian History, including Colonisation, Vietnam, Stolen Generation, WWI, WWII, as well as some politics (we did Whitlam).
Also I concur that The War for Independence is not mentioned at all (maybe in passing when talking about Federation)

 

[Joshimodo]

It wasn't a game-changer, that's why.

Typically, history taught in the UK focusses on the important bits - 1066, Henry VIII, WWII etc. It's narrow, but it's the stuff that actually changed the course of history for the country.

 

[pejhmon]

Do you learn about the English War of Independence over in the states? I think not

(Parliament vs King Charles for those who were wondering, with Oliver Cromwell becoming England's first Prime Minister)

English war for independance? Independance from who? You're thinking of the English civil war.

Also the first prime minister was Sir Rober Walpole. Kind of. Oliver Cromwell was Lord Protector for a few years, which was closer to a King than a Prime Minister.

My bad, got taught that in year 4/5 so my memory is a little off

 

[Scarim Coral]

None as far I was back at School. Heck I only know about it when I was a kid (although I didn't exactly dwell on it) was from the Animaniacs did a sketch on it (it more informative than being funny).

 

[theblackmonk90]

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

The jacket part is not true. Scarlet red was the colour worn by the New Model Army of Cromwell during the English civil war. Since Cromwell won and executed the king the New Model army because the English army. Thats why they wore red.

 

[DSQ]

Tbh it is not taught at all. We know about it but the detales arn't really that important in modern british life.

In scotland at least we only cover things like pre James the 1st scottish history, the industral revolution, the russian revolution and WWI and WWII mainly from a european persective.

The clostest we get to studying anything american orentated is in modern studies with subjects like the Civel rights movment and how congress and the House of reps are different ect.

I still don't know who paul rivear is and i don't care. Dispite america's influence on modern politics countries tend to stick to there own personal history that has an effect on modern events. Even with englands involvment in the US battle of independence the most I remember being taught about it was in passing about that fact that it happened at all.

It wasn't a game-changer, that's why.

Typically, history taught in the UK focusses on the important bits - 1066, Henry VIII, WWII etc. It's narrow, but it's the stuff that actually changed the course of history for the country.

I agree with this. I think is is the same for most countries so don't be to surprised if not alot of countrys are taught about early american history.

 

[Coraxian]

So did you learn about the Dutch colonization of the Congo, as I recall that's an event that many modern Dutch historians want to forget.

I doubt he, or anyone else would learn that, seeing as the Congo (the D.R. of Congo, that is) was colonised by King Leopold II of Belgium and later donated to the Belgian state. The dutch didn't have much to do with that. And in Belgium it is taught quite extensively, more than one lesson, iirc.

You might want to ask the Dutch about slave trade though.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Britain had a way larger population, economy, industrial capacity, and infrastructure. Not even comparable.

And none of which mattered when you're a minimum of 28 days from any sort of resupply point, and all those resources are being used elsewhere.

It'd be like waging a war on the Moon these days. A rag-tag band of Moonmen could beat the snot out of NASA with ease.

 

[Ranorak]

So did you learn about the Dutch colonization of the Congo, as I recall that's an event that many modern Dutch historians want to forget.

I doubt he, or anyone else would learn that, seeing as the Congo was colonised by King Leopold II of Belgium and later donated the the Belgian state. The dutch didn't have much to do with that. And in Belgium it is taught quite extensively, more than one lesson, iirc.

You might want to ask the Dutch about slave trade though.

Apartheid isn't a dutch word without a reason.
This topic, however, isn't skipped AT ALL in history class.
slave trade, discrimination and the abuse of Indonesia are big topics in history class.

 

[Thimblefoot]

It's not, as far as I'm aware. When I was at school it was never mentioned, even during the "America" segment of that class.

 

[Luthir Fontaine]

Im pretty sure its the same as how vietam is taught over here. Glossed over and few questions no one wants to teach how they lost.

 

[SomethingUnrelated]

It isn't. Not in any of my years of history education can I remember it being taught.

 

[Joccaren]

I don't know when you went to School, but in NSW, year 9 and 10 of History are both Australian History, including Colonisation, Vietnam, Stolen Generation, WWI, WWII, as well as some politics (we did Whitlam).
Also I concur that The War for Independence is not mentioned at all (maybe in passing when talking about Federation)

Well, we haven't touched it at all, other than way back in year 4. Year 9/10 is spent on WWI and WWII mostly. (In school at the moment)