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

[Calbeck]

India was a way bigger deal.

Not in 1776. It didn't become the "Jewel of the Empire" until the early-to-mid-1800s. And of course by that time the US was busily outpacing it.

Oh and Hong Kong.

Ha ha ha ha -XD

Hong Kong, itself, wasn't very valuable. It was simply an outpost by which CHINA opened up to Britain for commerce. If Britain'd colonized CHINA, you might have a point.

And those juicy diamond mines in Africa.

Nope. Most of the profit from British trade in Africa came from slavery, and the rum made from the molasses bought from America with the slaves. Even after the American Revolution.

Like I said, if we cared that much, we could have easily come back and made you say uncle.

Spoken like someone who hasn't actually studied the subject OH WAIT -XD

 

[Febel]

why must you feed the flames of patriotic bickering. This is why we can't have nice things, you know.

Awww but I'm having fun.

And tbh if I can teach an American humility, I will be in with a shot for a nobel prize.

I'm an American. And you've magically taught me humility by baiting me on forums. Your Nobel prize is in the mail. Don't be worried if it's oversized and ticking. And covered in radiation stickers. That just means it's authentic and...and...first class delivered.

The text book itself(for Texas) was VERY lacking for the national history portion. The sections for each area were extremely small and given we only had 250 years an 1 1/2 thick text book would seem good. Except it was plastered with pictures and the print was something out of a child's pop up book.

Will clean up my previous point to avoid further confusion.

But as far as i am concerned Texas text books for history suck and go into little depth on most subjects.

Well, that is because they spend a whole YEAR teaching the 12 years Texas was an independent country. Fuck that class, Texas History. It was long, boring, and stupid. No one in my class CARED that Texas was an independent country. Does Massachusetts have a "Massachusetts History" class dealing entirely with the history of being a separate colony until they signed the Articles of Confederation? Not that I know of... But Texas has to be fucking special, and not in a "You win a prize" way, either...

Actually, in most states, the standard course of study includes (usually around 7th grade) a course on that individual state's history. It's actually a pretty effective way of providing a "zoomed in" snapshot about how major events in US history impacted smaller areas and the people living in them. It provides more context for understanding those larger events.

Well I'm in Ohio. We never got one of those important impact OhNoWait...Ohio, I forgot.

 

[Calbeck]

I took California History and, when I moved to Arizona, Arizona History.

Most of both of those were learning about the conquistadores, Hispanic culture, and the impact of the Catholic Church on colonial progress. And every time I moved to another area, the new school would re-teach it.

I must have learned about Coronado SIX TIMES.

 

[Terminal Blue]

It's not.

I understand its importance to Americans, but ultimately it's not a big chapter in our history at all. We had a lot of colonies, most of them are now independent.

If a significant time were to be devoted to colonial history, I'd much rather focus on India and the independence movement, something which might actually have relevance to a large number of British people.

 

[Loiterer]

It's strange that it isn't taught at all (if I am to believe the comments here, I do not live in the UK) considering that it was a global event with far-reaching effects.

It wasn't a global event in itself, as a global event it was part of the prelude to our exciting adventures with France that would continue for a few decades. It didn't make much of a difference at the time, Britain became even more powerful despite losing their colony, and the USA would be little more than an irritant for a while. It was another century before America became a significant power.

I don't see why we'd learn anything more about it just because America became powerful in the 20th century. We generally focus on British and European history, and there's a lot to cover already.

On that note, it's very strange that the first world war is taught as a sort of triumphant victory in America (according to a poster in this thread). In Europe it's taught as a horrible, unrepeatable, senseless waste of human life. I guess being an ocean away contributes to that.

 

[funguy2121]

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

Creepy? You think it's creepy that an entire culture who's pulled together to rebuild their society and make friends with the very people who literally atom-bombed them would not want to talk about it?

A friend lived outside of Hiroshima for just over a year. They have WW2 museums. They certainly do not show a lack of interest.

 

[Ninonybox_v1legacy]

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

Congrats......your first post and you already broke one of the rules.

 

[somonels]

How is the English Civil War covered in the USA?
Despite what americans like to think, very few in the UK actually care about it. They care more about the French.

 

[Spade Lead]

Actually, in most states, the standard course of study includes (usually around 7th grade) a course on that individual state's history. It's actually a pretty effective way of providing a "zoomed in" snapshot about how major events in US history impacted smaller areas and the people living in them. It provides more context for understanding those larger events.

Yeah, I spent 7th grade in Texas hearing how Texas was a great Country (and how Mexicans are bad, as my friend mentioned in his response). Did you know there are still activist groups who think that they should go back to being a separate country? With what Domestic Products? Beef? Wheat? Corn? Not enough of any of those things to support a country... I don't imagine that your classes mention the glorious days of being an independent country, do they?

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Wasn't a major part of anything really. There wasn't much to recommended America at the time, and since the 13 colonies were really really tiny by contrast to Canada, India and Africa, its not even close to right saying that America was major.

India was always 'the Jewel in the Crown of the Empire'. It was, quite simply, the British Empire's most important and prestigious colonial holding(s - long story there).

As for the 13 colonies' importance to the Empire... let's just say that without the loss of their favourite dumping ground, the British would have never settled Australia when they did.

 

[Alar]

I took California History and, when I moved to Arizona, Arizona History.

Most of both of those were learning about the conquistadores, Hispanic culture, and the impact of the Catholic Church on colonial progress. And every time I moved to another area, the new school would re-teach it.

I must have learned about Coronado SIX TIMES.

One would think you would have been able to 'test' out of those classes and take something else... or have a break period.

 

[LostAlone]

India was a way bigger deal.

Not in 1776. It didn't become the "Jewel of the Empire" until the early-to-mid-1800s. And of course by that time the US was busily outpacing it.

Oh and Hong Kong.

Ha ha ha ha -XD

Hong Kong, itself, wasn't very valuable. It was simply an outpost by which CHINA opened up to Britain for commerce. If Britain'd colonized CHINA, you might have a point.

And those juicy diamond mines in Africa.

Nope. Most of the profit from British trade in Africa came from slavery, and the rum made from the molasses bought from America with the slaves. Even after the American Revolution.

Like I said, if we cared that much, we could have easily come back and made you say uncle.

Spoken like someone who hasn't actually studied the subject OH WAIT -XD

Read up on the East India Company. They were richer than the British government. And had their own army. And that was built on India and later the opium trade into China via Hong Kong. India was a VAST trove of wealth and absolutely was the basis of the empire.

And seriously, the British empires army was VAST. Our naval power was unsurpassed.

Like I said, don't think that just because you are a super power now, you were anything close to that at the time. A generation spanning empire that had proved time and again over centuries it could hang onto whatever real estate it wanted to absolutely couldn't have beaten you guy. You had George frikkin Washington for gods sake. What hope did we have ?

 

[Shock and Awe]

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

Considering we teach early English history(William the Conqueror and all that), it would be assumed that the UK says something on how the US started. Especially seeing as it was a British colony and currently the worlds most powerful nation.

 

[Shigematsu]

On the topic of Japanese History classes and textbooks.

Contrary to popular belief, the Japanese actually teach the Nanking Massacre, Unit 731, and the comfort women of World War II, as well as other parts of WWII.

All of those things you hear about modern Japanese History textbooks whitewashing their history aren't true in the way you think it is. There exists a textbook which does, but it is used in less than 0.05% of schools.

The vastly more commonly used textbooks do cover the sensitive subject matters of WWII, similarly to Germany. The Japanese know far more about their history than people give them credit for.

 

[funguy2121]

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

We teach the Magna Carta, John Locke, the Bill of Rights.

America is the most important country in the world. It would be remiss not to touch on its founding, especially when that event had ramifications that utterly remade Europe and South America.

Watch that black kettle there.

You two are prime candidates for stranding on a desert island together. I don't fancy myself a pot but I will call your kettle a cotton-pickin' racist

 

[Booze Zombie]

I remember covering Henry the eighth, WW2 and everything between the two of them, briefly touching upon the colonial era and than we stopped learning.

Considering we teach early English history(William the Conqueror and all that), it would be assumed that the UK says something on how the US started. Especially seeing as it was a British colony and currently the worlds most powerful nation.

Ha, ha, ha, so powerful it's collapsing under it's own weight. Also, Americans seem to downplay the whole "France did most of the work" part of it all.