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

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Yes it is. The rest of the world views it as such. When your army is fighting your own people, it is a civil war.

No it isn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civil_wars#Early_Modern_.281550.E2.80.931800.29

The American Revolutionary war isn't there. The American colonists weren't English. There were loyalist colonists who fought on the side of the British Empire, but that still doesn't make it a civil war.

Yes, it is.
The American Revolution was a civil war between Loyalists to the British crown (aka Tories, about one fifth of the population), supported by British expeditionary forces, and Patriots (or Whigs) in the 13 colonies that constituted British North America.
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/9-26-2005-77540.asp

They came from England, were ruled by England - they were English.

 

[Loiterer]

"The American Revolution was a civil war between Loyalists to the British crown (aka Tories, about one fifth of the population), supported by British expeditionary forces, and Patriots (or Whigs) in the 13 colonies that constituted British North America."

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/9-26-2005-77540.asp

It wasn't a civil war. You can look at it like that if you want, as can the writer of that article, but it's decided by consensus, and the vast majority of people do not hold the Ameriacn Revolutionary War to be a civil war.

 

[ninja51]

Well we kinda didnt cover English history at all in my history classes. Id assume they taught our history in the same way. By ignoring it near completely

 

[ENKC]

I can't speak for Europe but I watched a British historian talk about the Revolution as a civil war between the British and it's colonists.

Perhaps you're thinking about this program: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebels_and_Redcoats_%28TV_Series%29

As I recall, it characterised it as a 'civil war' between Americans as it divided the loyalties within communities and even families. It was by no means a straightforward matter of 'Americans vs Britons'.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/rebels_redcoats_01.shtml

In one sense it was always a war between cousins, and the long and tangled history of the 'special relationship' between Britain and America, as well as the notion of the unbreakable connections between both, bear witness to a link that at one time was very close indeed.

 

[Insideout Ink Demon]

oh yeah, and our history goes back quite a bit further.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

"The American Revolution was a civil war between Loyalists to the British crown (aka Tories, about one fifth of the population), supported by British expeditionary forces, and Patriots (or Whigs) in the 13 colonies that constituted British North America."

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/9-26-2005-77540.asp

It wasn't a civil war. You can look at it like that if you want, as can the writer of that article, but it's decided by consensus, and the vast majority of people do not hold the Ameriacn Revolutionary War to be a civil war.

The vast majority of who? From the onlooking nations, it was a civil war. The only people I have ever heard that didn't recognize it as a civil war were from the UK.

 

[trooper6]

Considering it was a civil war with England, you would think that their history classes would cover it. The US covers all of it's civil wars. But then again, the UK had alot of civil wars.

It's not a civil war. England only had one civil war, in the 17th century.

Yes it is. The rest of the world views it as such. When your army is fighting your own people, it is a civil war.

I do want to point out that the US population was more than just British people. There were *huge* numbers of Germans for example...and Dutch, French, Spaniards, etc. One of the reasons the US doesn't have an official national language is because the founding fathers couldn't decide between English and German.

"The American Revolution was a civil war between Loyalists to the British crown (aka Tories, about one fifth of the population), supported by British expeditionary forces, and Patriots (or Whigs) in the 13 colonies that constituted British North America."

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/9-26-2005-77540.asp

To call it British North America is very misleading. Since you can quote, I can quote too:

"In New England and the South, the people were almost wholly of English stock,1 with a sprinkling of Scotch-Irish and other nationalities, and, especially in the South, of French Huguenots and Germans. In the middle colonies less than half the population was English; the Dutch of New York, the Germans of Pennsylvania, the Swedes of Delaware, and the Irish of all these colonies, together with small numbers of other nationalities, made up more than half the population."

This particular article, "Population and Social Rank in Colonial America" also points out that 1/4 of the colonial population were black slaves...so no, while parts of the US were British colonies (the parts I grew up in were Spanish colonies), not all the colonists were British.

http://www.usahistory.info/colonial/population.html

 

[Some_weirdGuy]

@ febel:

Ah, I see, my bad.

carry on then
*tips hat and steps back out door*

 

[Spineyguy]

Quite simply, it's not. I don't think the war for independence has been on the national curriculum for a long while. However, a mate of mine used to go to a private school, where it was taught, and largely he said that it was very fair on everyone, with neither side being put across more favourably than the other.

That said, I reckon that would depend heavily on the teacher, there are plenty of quite bigoted people in our education system, though not nearly as many as there used to be, and teachers are given a lot of freedom about how they teach, compared with those of other countries.

Funny how everyone seems to hate the British Empire as though it were some major exception in history. We are not alone in having committed atrocities in the name of National conquest, the Romans, the French, the Spanish, even the Third Reich were all just as unfair as we were. The British did not invent slavery. I in no way condone what was done in the name of the Church and Crown back then, nor do I think our Empire was any better than any of the others throughout history, but to say, as many do, that Britain is the source of all the world's evil is just ridiculous.

I would be apprehensive about putting our educations system under inspection when America's is as backwards, arrogant and overly religious as it is. I'm still revolted by the ignorance of many of the American tourists that come through the door of my shop, and it needs sorting out, they give the rest of you a bad name.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Considering it was a civil war with England, you would think that their history classes would cover it. The US covers all of it's civil wars. But then again, the UK had alot of civil wars.

It's not a civil war. England only had one civil war, in the 17th century.

Yes it is. The rest of the world views it as such. When your army is fighting your own people, it is a civil war.

I do want to point out that the US population was more than just British people. There were *huge* numbers of Germans for example...and Dutch, French, Spaniards, etc. One of the reasons the US doesn't have an official national language is because the founding fathers couldn't decide between English and German.

"The American Revolution was a civil war between Loyalists to the British crown (aka Tories, about one fifth of the population), supported by British expeditionary forces, and Patriots (or Whigs) in the 13 colonies that constituted British North America."

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/9-26-2005-77540.asp

To call it British North America is very misleading. Since you can quote, I can quote too:

"In New England and the South, the people were almost wholly of English stock,1 with a sprinkling of Scotch-Irish and other nationalities, and, especially in the South, of French Huguenots and Germans. In the middle colonies less than half the population was English; the Dutch of New York, the Germans of Pennsylvania, the Swedes of Delaware, and the Irish of all these colonies, together with small numbers of other nationalities, made up more than half the population."

This particular article, "Population and Social Rank in Colonial America" also points out that 1/4 of the colonial population were black slaves...so no, while parts of the US were British colonies (the parts I grew up in were Spanish colonies), not all the colonists were British.

http://www.usahistory.info/colonial/population.html

And would you like to compare the populations of England at that time as well? How many people in the Uk have other backgrounds? LOL
It was a civil war.

 

[Loiterer]

The vast majority of who? From the onlooking nations, it was a civil war. The only people I have ever heard that didn't recognize it as a civil war were from the UK.

Historians? And unless 'buzzle' is an onlooking nation, I've never seen any nation recognise it as a civil war.

 

[gphjr14]

I'd say it gets about as much attention as the latin american wars of independence, or others.

While your independence may be a big deal to you what makes you think its more then a footnote in the histories of other nations?

Because it was the first nationalist revolution anywhere. In many ways it is the beginning of modern nationalism.
Because it started the move away from monarchic systems for the West.
Because it inspired the French Revolution.

The American Revolution isn't important because of America or England, it is important for its position as part of the development of Enlightenment thinking and the beginning of the end of Feudalism. And also for the beginning salvo against the Colonial and monarchic systems.

I don't expect any non-US Westerner to learn much about US history...but I do expect Western folks to learn about the US War of Independence. *Especially* if they were one of the parties fighting in it. Similarly, I expect Westerners to learn about the French Revolution and the Protestant Reformation.

But, I have learned years and years about that that is not the case in the UK--though my French friends learned about the American Revolution..and I think my German friends did, too.

So, I just shrug and figure every education system has different politics.

No it wasn't theres been several instances of occupiers/invaders being ousted by those who considered themselves the native/ rightful rulers. Off the top of my head the Chinese who established the Ming Dynasty ousted Mongols to establish a Han Chinese majority government. In college I met a French exchange student who studied the American Revolution in high school not so much for those BS ideals they lecture in HS about liberty and justice but because the role the US would come to play in global economics and Euro/American expansion in North America. Colonist were pissed about taxes but they were more pissed the Crown was forbidding them to expand westward, pissing off the French and Indians. Once they could expand into Indian territories they could grow and sell more cotton, tobacco, and sugar cane; cash crops the Europeans ate up.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

The vast majority of who? From the onlooking nations, it was a civil war. The only people I have ever heard that didn't recognize it as a civil war were from the UK.

Historians? And unless 'buzzle' is an onlooking nation, I've never seen any nation recognise it as a civil war.

That is how it was taught here in the US. It was a civil war, where the rebels broke free.
Were the colonies ruled by England? Was their history native to the American continent, or were they sent here by England? So their ancestors were European and not Native American? It wasn't like that war was between the natives, so you cannot call it a foreign war. Nope it was a civil war between the government and their people.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

"The American Revolution was a civil war between Loyalists to the British crown (aka Tories, about one fifth of the population), supported by British expeditionary forces, and Patriots (or Whigs) in the 13 colonies that constituted British North America."

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/9-26-2005-77540.asp

It wasn't a civil war. You can look at it like that if you want, as can the writer of that article, but it's decided by consensus, and the vast majority of people do not hold the Ameriacn Revolutionary War to be a civil war.

The vast majority of who? From the onlooking nations, it was a civil war. The only people I have ever heard that didn't recognize it as a civil war were from the UK.

And everyone in the USA. Here it is not a civil War because we already have one; its just a rebellion to our history classes. All thought a massively hyped rebellion in which we beat the blood thirsty red coats(i still have much respect for the British and as far as i am concerned; land or no land you are still an Empire and a damn good one)back to England.

Civil War dosen't have the same ring to it is here its not referred to as such.

In US history class we were taught it was a civil war where the people rebelled against their government and won.

 

[trooper6]

No it wasn't theres been several instances of occupiers/invaders being ousted by those who considered themselves the native/ rightful rulers. Off the top of my head the Chinese who established the Ming Dynasty ousted Mongols to establish a Han Chinese majority government. In college I met a French exchange student who studied the American Revolution in high school not so much for those BS ideals they lecture in HS about liberty and justice but because the role the US would come to play in global economics and Euro/American expansion in North America. Colonist were pissed about taxes but they were more pissed the Crown was forbidding them to expand westward, pissing off the French and Indians. Once they could expand into Indian territories they could grow and sell more cotton, tobacco, and sugar cane; cash crops the Europeans ate up.

Occupiers/invaders being ousted by those who considered themselves natives/rightful rulers doesn't actually haven anything to do with *nationalism* which is a particular political ideology coined by Herder in the 1770s. One of the standard texts on Nationalism is _Nationalism_ by Ernst Gellner, but you don't want to read that, you can look at the wikipedia page on Nationalism. Check the History section. It is only a paragraph long.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism

 

[the_dancy_vagrant]

Is it true that Americans don't learn much history about nations in their history classes? (and I mean the under grade 10 history classes and I mean non-ancient stuff)

Also I'm Australian not British but at the school I go to we had half of a term to learn about the US and it's history, it was interesting stuff.

Depends on the school and the teacher.

The major focus of history classes in grammar school (as I recall) was pretty USA-centric. Middle school was split between international history, then local history, then back to international history again. Once I was in high school, it was very much focused on more recent history, so basically everything that happened from 1900 and on.