If a Nation owns land, governs land, and collects taxes from that land, it belongs to them. It also helps that the people living there are from that nation as well.Loiterer said:
How is the American War for Independance taught in the UK?
- Thread starter spectrenihlus
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I think that wars between empires and their colonies are "wars of independence" rather than civil wars. Civil wars are wars between organized groups in one nation state (ie Spainish civil war between Fascists and Socialists , The English Civil Wars between Parlimentarians and Royalists) not the American Colonies vs the British Empire.Lil devils x said:Actually the subject matter is a part of this thread. How American revolution is taught in the UK is the discussion here. Whether it is taught as an English civil war, an English revolt, or an English rebellion would all fall under that catagory. It wasn't like that war started between two nations.mikozero said:go over to the politics forum and present what you think is your case to your fellow Americans.Lil devils x said:The Colonies were a part of England, and EVERYONE knows that too. LOLmikozero said:except for the fact they were already part of the United states and y'know in it.Lil devils x said:But by your definition, The Civil war in the United States was never a civil war. The south didn't wish to take the whole nation, they simply wanted independence from the other states. If they had won, it would have been a "Revolutionary war". Just as the Civil war between the colonies and England was called therafter.mikozero said:don't even go there. Scotland is not a colony nor was it a conquered nation. the act of union was two independent sovereign nations joining to created a new political entity and you are the one who has insisted in calling Britain England all the way through this.Lil devils x said:Loiterer said:I don't think that's true for most of them.Lil devils x said:
See above.
Really? Where is the USA on this map:
England owned America. That's not the same as America bing a part of England.
Taking English property doesn't make it a civil war. The USA took British property.
Now we're getting somewhere.
So scotland was never a part of the UK either?
let's see what they have to say.
i'm not interested and the your subject matter is not the same as this threads.
In Britain, History classes throughout school life go from the Romans, to the Saxons, to the Vikings, to the Normans etc etc.
It has to span over 2,000 years of history so you can forgive having to leave out one revolution I think.
It has to span over 2,000 years of history so you can forgive having to leave out one revolution I think.
Yes, it belongs to them. It isn't a part of them. The American colonies belonged to England. They were not part of England. That means it isn't a civil war. And why did you write this in a response to a comment about Scotland? Do you think England owns Scotland or something?Lil devils x said:
And the people in the colonies were not from England. Some were, not all.
I don't know about anyone else here, but the only thing I covered in history pre-GCSE's was the holocaust with one week going on about the british revolution. For 3 years.
Countrys tend to focus on their highs rather than their lows, and nothing else. History about WW2 mainly consisted of "yeah the holocaust was really awful, so us brits decided to stop it with planes. Isnt it cool that a small island managed to take out a huge country?" whilst im assuming the americans go in history lessons "yeah the brits were being right pricks towards us, so we decided to become independant and won. Isnt it cool that we won against a nation that had half the world at this point and caused other places to cause a revolution as well?"
The same goes for other countrys as well. My russian friend once told me that his lessons consisted of how the russians landed the final blow on the nazis, by fighting them in the harsh winters. Because why would you want to paint your impressionable children with the idea that you country sucks/did all the bad stuff (iron curtain, holocaust, nuking japan) when you can tell it all the good stuff (breaking down said iron curtain, being the main cause of stopping said holocaust, gaining independance)?
Countrys tend to focus on their highs rather than their lows, and nothing else. History about WW2 mainly consisted of "yeah the holocaust was really awful, so us brits decided to stop it with planes. Isnt it cool that a small island managed to take out a huge country?" whilst im assuming the americans go in history lessons "yeah the brits were being right pricks towards us, so we decided to become independant and won. Isnt it cool that we won against a nation that had half the world at this point and caused other places to cause a revolution as well?"
The same goes for other countrys as well. My russian friend once told me that his lessons consisted of how the russians landed the final blow on the nazis, by fighting them in the harsh winters. Because why would you want to paint your impressionable children with the idea that you country sucks/did all the bad stuff (iron curtain, holocaust, nuking japan) when you can tell it all the good stuff (breaking down said iron curtain, being the main cause of stopping said holocaust, gaining independance)?
I remember hearing that Japan and Germany only cover this topic in very broad strokes, there was a discussion I had when I went on holiday to Japan with a teacher that had never even heard of Pearl Harbour.theonlyblaze2 said:
I know hardly anything about it... Mel Gibson saw us off though didn't he? just like the Scottish revolution? (was taught about as much to me haha)
It isnt, but then, a History curriculum has to pick and choose certain things. I can recall doing 1066, the Tudors, and WW1 + 2, because these are seen as defining features in English/British history. We also did the Holocaust, because...well, it's the Holocaust, it needs to be taught.
As for the war of Independence, firstly, I'd say that we weren't taught anything about British Imperialism at all through Primary and Secondary school.
It might be because the politics of this time is pretty damn complicated (I did a module on the rise and fall of British power, at university) so any primary schoolers or high school students would get bored with it pretty quickly
And also, WE LOST. Sure, nowadays most Brits acknowledge that the Empire wasn't really a good thing, but still, no one likes to admit that we lost, and so other more "glorious" moments in our history are taught.
I'm pretty sure other countries do exactly the same thing.
As for the war of Independence, firstly, I'd say that we weren't taught anything about British Imperialism at all through Primary and Secondary school.
It might be because the politics of this time is pretty damn complicated (I did a module on the rise and fall of British power, at university) so any primary schoolers or high school students would get bored with it pretty quickly
And also, WE LOST. Sure, nowadays most Brits acknowledge that the Empire wasn't really a good thing, but still, no one likes to admit that we lost, and so other more "glorious" moments in our history are taught.
I'm pretty sure other countries do exactly the same thing.
they didnt, but i did a fair bit of research into the subject and it seems to me that britain abandoned the incredably ungrateful colonies because france was fighting your battles for you, pressure from france (especialy in regards to the possibility of loosing jamaica) meant it was worthless to stay any longer, bad idea!
I went to a state school and our history teacher covered it pretty well, The reasons behind it and how it all went down. Also they made it pretty clear that it was a natural evolution of a society wanting independence. I honestly don't think any Americans would have disapproved of the treatment the subject got.
look, our schools need to cover all of our wars before they start moving to america. in fact i had never heard of this until i saw the post ^_^U. also i have learnt a little more about english history from reading manga and sometimes posts on the escapist than i have from going to school.
It depends on where you study really. One of the modules for my year's 6th form was about the American West, but we only touched upon it a small amount, the main focus was the Native American's and the Civil War.
Remember American history is really only a few hundred years, British is 2000 years, so we must learn alot of this, ancient greece, WW1 and WW2 (from british, french, german, japanise and american perspectives), the french revolution, Napoleon, Black slavery, Holocaust, America 1890-1945, america civil rights movement, Germany 1914-1945, Over view of imperialism, International affairs 1914-1945. and these are full capters aswell, we also have alot to cover and as you can see some of it is American but we dont really see how the american revolution should be given more attention than other colonial revolutionsJegsimmons said:
Not at all actually, Britain has a much richer history than America, and the war for independence is not seen as important in the UK.
"Taking" of Texas? Texas ASKED to be a state, by it's own admission. That is what we were taught in my Texas History class. They won their independence from Mexico, mucked about as a single state for a bit, then applied for Statehood.RedEyesBlackGamer said:
Yh i think he was trying to make himself sound morally superior by saying he knows all the bad things his country did but failedSpade Lead said: