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

[Spade Lead]

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

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...

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

i don't even think they are allowed to be mentioned at all

And you would be wrong:

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

I'm pretty sure it's illegal to mention them. Let me get back to you on that.

Spoiler: No it's not. Click here if you want more info.

"Hi, I am German and in my mid-40s.
It is the exact opposite to ?just another fact? in German school teaching. It preoccupies the largest part of all subjects taught in history and social science lessons.

In Germany every detail of WW1, Weimar Republic, WW2 and the Holocaust is taught in history lessons in detail. Every school year there is a special activity on the holocaust with seminars and workshops.
It is rather intense and sobering if you sit in school and from the age of 13-18 years old, every year you hear about your country?s morbid history.
But because of it, you understand better how the situation came about, what people did or did not do and leaned to understand why the sentence ?Never in this country again? is so important.
We can only walk the earth with our heads held up high, if we admit to the atrocities that were committed in our name or our ancestors name.

This is the reason why the denial of the Holocaust is a criminal offensive in Germany and punished by imprisonment.

It is illegal in Germany for the reason that it was a crime committed on German soil by the German government 1933-1945.
Volksverhetzung: ?stirring up the populace?, ?agitation of the people?) is a concept in German criminal law that bans the incitement of hatred against a segment of the population. It often applies in, though it is not limited to, trials relating to Holocaust denial in Germany. The German penal code (Strafgesetzbuch) establishes that someone is guilty of Volksverhetzung if he:

in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace:

1. incites hatred against segments of the population or calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them; or
2. assaults the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning, or defaming segments of the population

There are also special provisions for holocaust denial (added in the 1990s) and speech justifying or glorifying the Nazi government 1933-1945.

Although freedom of speech is mentioned by Article 5 of the Grundgesetz (Germany?s constitution), said article basically protects any non-outlawed speech. Restrictions exist, e.g. against personal insults, use of symbols of unconstitutional organizations, or Volksverhetzung. It is a common misconception that Volksverhetzung includes any spreading of nazism, racist, or other discriminatory ideas. For any hate speech to be punishable as Volksverhetzung, the law requires that said speech be ?qualified for disturbing public peace? either by inciting ?hatred against parts of the populace? or calling for ?acts of violence or despotism against them?, or by attacking ?the human dignity of others by reviling, maliciously making contemptible or slandering parts of the populace?.

Volksverhetzung is a punishable offense under Germany?s criminal code and can lead to up to five years imprisonment. Volksverhetzung is punishable in Germany even if committed abroad and even if committed by non-German citizens, if the incitement of hatred takes effect on German territory?that is, the seditious sentiment was expressed in written or spoken German and disseminated in Germany.
Similar laws exist in UK, Ireland, Sweden and Finland.

?But if someone chooses to believe that it didn?t happen..whats the problem, why should it be a crime?? many people ask.
If someone believes that Jewish people are not humans and should be killed in concentrations camps, that is a problem and it is a crime. Holocaust deniers do not deny it because they have not seen the proof, they deny it because they sympathise with Nazis. Someone has to make a stand against Neo-Nazis and the German people have taken up that task.
If you deny the Holocaust existed then you can argue it should not be taught in history lessons in schools and the likelyhood of it re-occurring is higher. If nobody sees it to be a problem because they are kept ignorant, dictators and manipulators have it easy again.

Link for reference.

But it is illegal to do anything to affiliate one's self with the Nazi Party or Neo-Nazis with the intent of inciting hatred (ie: owning/exchanging contraband, giving salutes, goose-stepping, the whole nine yards). At least I got that part right.

Holy crap that is interesting... I wonder how they would react to my teasing my girlfriend because she is half-Jewish... Nothing inciting prejudice, but I do get pretty racist when I am teasing her. (She knows I don't mean any of it, and that it is just how I show her that I care... Teasing her, not racist comments.)

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

Canadian here, American Revolution was never taught in any of my schooling. What I know is what I've read on my own free time. I know more about the American civil war than the American Revolution but again, that was from reading on my own time.

 

[Mordereth]

America was on Frances side btw. Bet you don't get taught that either.

Actually, the role of the French in our own revolution is emphasized quite heavily, at least in the liberal state (Massachusetts) where I grew up (it may be different in Kansas.)

But I don't recall the U.S. having much to do with the Napoleonic Wars save for distracting the Brits for a little bit between 1812 and 1814.

America never fought on land during the Napoleonic wars, but they were defacto at war with Britain since the end of revolution, and had fun attacking our shipping for many many years. When the crunch came, America made no difference at all, but they were on the highly democratic and utterly non-monarchist Emperor Napoleons side.

Read the first paragraph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_of_1812

EDIT: Scrolling down to the "Impressment" section may be enlightening, as well.

 

[LostAlone]

Its rather unlike the states to admit they were on the side that lost.

This is the problem with modern education however, that we breed the bigotry into each generation. Unfortunately I live in a country where many of our people have been vocally bigoted and travel a lot, making *sses of themselves and so we get that kind of attitude.

True enough.

Its not like its any better over here (in terms of biased history), its just different. We've not been important since the end of the second world war, and so our history tends to be more circumspect but does rather emphasize the late middle ages (from the Norman conquest to us conquering them back a few centuries later) and Tudor dynasty. Basically when we were more obviously glorious rather than oppressing people. We don't study the more morally ambiguous bits in anywhere near the same depth.

 

[LinwoodElrich]

I know more about the American civil war than the American Revolution but again, that was from reading on my own time.

You aren't the first to say that and I'm rather puzzled. I would've never expected more people to know more details about the civil war than the revolution. Personally I love the civil war history so I'm glad to see other countries know about it too I'm just curious why.

 

[Spade Lead]

Whole school system is shit. Read the part i added in shortly after remembering a book i read at the Library a few weeks back.

No, I think you are just wrong. I went to school in 9 different states, and let me tell you, I learned a shit ton about slaughtering the natives, Vietnam, Korea, and the war of 1812. You probably just weren't paying attention and don't remember that much from those classes.

Then again, I am a history buff, and my Mom was HUGE into the Civil War and "Trail of Tears," so what we learned in school was expounded upon by family trips to Montana battlefield sites like "Little Big Horn." "Little Big Horn" is the site of Custer's last stand, and is a famous attraction near where one of my Aunts lives...

 

[LostAlone]

America was on Frances side btw. Bet you don't get taught that either.

Actually, the role of the French in our own revolution is emphasized quite heavily, at least in the liberal state (Massachusetts) where I grew up (it may be different in Kansas.)

But I don't recall the U.S. having much to do with the Napoleonic Wars save for distracting the Brits for a little bit between 1812 and 1814.

America never fought on land during the Napoleonic wars, but they were defacto at war with Britain since the end of revolution, and had fun attacking our shipping for many many years. When the crunch came, America made no difference at all, but they were on the highly democratic and utterly non-monarchist Emperor Napoleons side.

Read the first paragraph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_of_1812

Like I said we were defacto at war. 1812 was definitively not part of the Napoleonic wars, even though it was in the same time period. We were a big empire and we fought lots of people, and 1812 made not a scrap of difference to what we were doing in Europe.

 

[Febel]

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

Its called history class. The American Revolution involed England, so its not arrogant to assume they might teach some of England's history in their class. It would maybe be arrogant to assume every country teaches it, but not the other side of the conflict.

In his defence the british empire has had a LOT of colonies revolt against it, in Asia Africa and the Americas so covering one just because it's a current superpower doesn't seem fair. They should spread the lessons out to cover all their failed ventures.

 

[-Samurai-]

Kinda surprised to see that it isn't taught. But with all the history you have without it, and the other things going on in that time period, I can sorta understand.

I remember touching on quite a bit in history throughout the years. It was one of my favorite classes. My schools did a damn fine job of educating us on not only our own history, but they history of many, many other places. We touched on everything from ancient Egypt, to Rome, to the UK, and onwards. I remember ancient Egypt in the 4th grade being one of my favorite studies, and the Greek Mythology in the 5th grade had me interested for a long time. We moved up through the Middle Ages and all the way up to current events, touching on as many nations as possible.

The only part of history that bored me was our own history. The founding fathers stuff gets old fast. Too many damn dates and names.

 

[Veylon]

Any history has it's gaps. When I went to school (in America) European history was barely touched upon. Everything between Columbus coming from there and World War I was ignored. According to my textbook, Napoleon's sole act was to sell us Louisiana.

And this was a seven hundred page tome on American history, a country with a relatively short span compared to any of those European ones. I can only imagine how thick it'd be if was anywhere near complete.

 

[Harrowdown]

It isn't in secondary school history, really. It can come up at A level, and at degree level if you choose American History.

 

[Saelune]

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

Its called history class. The American Revolution involed England, so its not arrogant to assume they might teach some of England's history in their class. It would maybe be arrogant to assume every country teaches it, but not the other side of the conflict.

In his defence the british empire has had a LOT of colonies revolt against it, in Asia Africa and the Americas so covering one just because it's a current superpower doesn't seem fair. They should spread the lessons out to cover all their failed ventures.

I did not forget that. That is why I merely said it involed them. However, I do think that America's imprtance know kinda should make it more important. Knowing the past lets you better understand the current and future.
And every country should be aware of the good and bad they have done. (Yes, including the U.S.) Best way to better yourself is to know your flaws. Same works for a country and its people.

 

[Agayek]

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

To be fair, the American Revolution was a massive blow to the UK, in both economics and prestige. If it hadn't happened, the Napoleonic Wars would have likely had a drastically different outcome.

Not to mention that a continued grasp on the colonies would have likely allowed the British Empire to last for another century, at minimum.

 

[TiefBlau]

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

Welcome to the Escapist.

Also, grow up.

 

[godofallu]

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

That's your first post? Wow.

I can see your getting started off on the wrong foot already. In the future try not to automatically hate every person in a country, and think about your post before hitting submit.

 

[Calbeck]

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

Typical nationalist arrogance to pretend that a major part of said nation's empire didn't just get up and leave. -

 

[Mordereth]

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

Its called history class. The American Revolution involed England, so its not arrogant to assume they might teach some of England's history in their class. It would maybe be arrogant to assume every country teaches it, but not the other side of the conflict.

In his defence the british empire has had a LOT of colonies revolt against it, in Asia Africa and the Americas so covering one just because it's a current superpower doesn't seem fair. They should spread the lessons out to cover all their failed ventures.

I did not forget that. That is why I merely said it involed them. However, I do think that America's imprtance know kinda should make it more important. Knowing the past lets you better understand the current and future.
And every country should be aware of the good and bad they have done. (Yes, including the U.S.) Best way to better yourself is to know your flaws. Same works for a country and its people.

I completely agree with that- slavery is glossed over with that "States Rights" bullshit. No-one wants to admit it was over race, they want to move on and hate homosexuals while the hatin's good (i.e.: until the bigots get it handed to them again).

However, you might take note of the bold text; there were no attacks made on British shipping lanes- rather, British navy ships took sailors off of American merchant ships to serve involuntarily.

A small detail in the larger scheme of discussion, iS'pose.

 

[LostAlone]

I did not forget that. That is why I merely said it involed them. However, I do think that America's imprtance know kinda should make it more important. Knowing the past lets you better understand the current and future.
And every country should be aware of the good and bad they have done. (Yes, including the U.S.) Best way to better yourself is to know your flaws. Same works for a country and its people.

Its not like we aren't aware of what happened in the revolution, its just not something we get taught in schools.

Most of our history isn't particularly favorable to America quite frankly. We get taught that y'all sat twiddling your thumbs while millions of Europeans died for no reason. Now that's not strictly the truth either, but if thats how you get treated when you're on our side, imagine how you get treated when you aren't.

 

[Dastardly]

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

Please.

It was a war that also involved a great many English folks. You know, Cornwallis and so on. Also, pretty much everyone in the war was English--we weren't "the United States of America" yet. Why wouldn't a conflict like that be at least mentioned in a survey of British history?

The OP wasn't asking if it was given the same weight, or even if it was called "The American Revolution" or "American War for Independence." He was just asking how the subject was covered in the other country directly involved in the conflict.

His question is perfectly legitimate and reasonable. He recognizes that there can be two varying viewpoints on the same topic, and he's interested in finding out what the other might be. That's pretty much the exact opposite of arrogance.

Your reply, however? Very arrogant to assume you know enough to speak for an entire cultural body, and to speak against another. Arrogant to completely overlook basic facts, all because you thought you'd found a golden opportunity to make some clever, stinging observation/generalization on American culture.