This, i vaguely remember it being mentioned in the one term we spend covering all of modern history, in grade 8, and there may have even been a question on the test.Joccaren said:
How is the American War for Independance taught in the UK?
- Thread starter spectrenihlus
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Fair enough then, just so long as you're not one of those "We saved your ass, you owe us" people. I was speaking more in terms of without us, Canada and Russia, would you have stood a chance? I'd say no, but that's conjecture. Industrially, yes, you had most of the power but that's because your factories weren't bombed to shit like the British ones were. In terms of man power and actual fighting, however, you guys were not the majority.harmonic said:
You won.harmonic said:
Your sparse band of rag-tags were British and had exactly the same level of development.
http://www.colonialhall.com/biodoi.php
James Smith, George Taylor and Matthew Thornton were Irish.
James Wilson and John Witherspoon were Scottish.
The American Revoloution was a band of Europeans fighting Europeans, the winning side colonized, and called itself America.
Pity the current administration haven't learned this lesson.
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 .....
EDIT: Replace "war of independence" with "civil war". Same principal though, the outcome of the civil affected England just as much as the American War of Independence affected the States. Also ignore what I said about Cromwell beign the first prime minister, got my facts a little wrong (got taught this over 10 years ago >.>)
(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 .....
EDIT: Replace "war of independence" with "civil war". Same principal though, the outcome of the civil affected England just as much as the American War of Independence affected the States. Also ignore what I said about Cromwell beign the first prime minister, got my facts a little wrong (got taught this over 10 years ago >.>)
As already said, the American War of Independence isn't covered in the history curriculum in the UK. In one book i have recently read, a British historian makes the following observations:
1)The war could have been avoided if greater political autonomy had been given to the American colonies, as that is what they wanted. America could have turned out like Canada.
2)It wasn't about taxes. American colonists had some of the lowest tax rates in the Empire, the Boston Tea Party was conducted by smugglers whom were protesting against British tea being cheaply sold in America as it was under-cutting their business.
3)It was a war which Britain did, or could not afford, to put much effort in. One, Britain was at war with France at the time, and two the British public were sympathetic towards the American colonists whom were virtually also British colonists. Plus, economically strategically, America wasn't that important in the 18th century. What was far more important was the Caribbean and the sugar and cotton plantations.
In sum, America was written off as an acceptable loss given that there was a more important war to fight against France, the British public were against it and the that the war was over only minor economic value at the time.
1)The war could have been avoided if greater political autonomy had been given to the American colonies, as that is what they wanted. America could have turned out like Canada.
2)It wasn't about taxes. American colonists had some of the lowest tax rates in the Empire, the Boston Tea Party was conducted by smugglers whom were protesting against British tea being cheaply sold in America as it was under-cutting their business.
3)It was a war which Britain did, or could not afford, to put much effort in. One, Britain was at war with France at the time, and two the British public were sympathetic towards the American colonists whom were virtually also British colonists. Plus, economically strategically, America wasn't that important in the 18th century. What was far more important was the Caribbean and the sugar and cotton plantations.
In sum, America was written off as an acceptable loss given that there was a more important war to fight against France, the British public were against it and the that the war was over only minor economic value at the time.
Isn't great to see us all come together and celebrate this just victory we had and not bicker over who did what...electric_warrior said:
I was a history major in college and I always wondered this so good job for the non zombie or avatar related thread idea.
By the way, I had somewhere along the lines of about 18 history classes and Vietnam was not very well discussed in any of them. I specifically took more modern history classes out of interest in it and other more recent historical development and all I could get was that it was too recent to get a very good perspective on and that yes it was a total American cockup. So obviously each school, course and teacher vary.
according to my British mother, it isn't. She said she got to pick a period in history and study that, she chose Henry VIII's time ( British history is so vast that a short little blip like our US revolutionary war, is about as significant in the long term as Monica Lewinsky was in US history.)
It isn't taught at all really. From what I remember primary school history covers Aztecs, Vikings, Romans and Greeks (you know, the fun bits) and secondary school starts with the middle ages and works its way up to the cold war.
History was a stupid subject though, on my GCSE exam we had a question like "Explain how Hitler rose to power and how germany changed during the 4 years prior to the begining of the second world war" and we got 5 marks for it, whilst we got a fucking 17 marks for "Explain how the role of women in the work place changed during the second world war."... What the hell, I'm all for womens rights, but its not as complicated as basically explaining how world war 2 started.
History was a stupid subject though, on my GCSE exam we had a question like "Explain how Hitler rose to power and how germany changed during the 4 years prior to the begining of the second world war" and we got 5 marks for it, whilst we got a fucking 17 marks for "Explain how the role of women in the work place changed during the second world war."... What the hell, I'm all for womens rights, but its not as complicated as basically explaining how world war 2 started.
Not to take too much away from this thread, especially reading only one page of 16, but in light of the various people discussing the history of pre-mid-and-post-WWII Germany, I just want to take this opportunity to thank Germany for - in lieu of making games about war and/or Nazis - ended up developing a brand of board games that eventually expanded to the world and made board games way more frickin' awesome than Monopoly and Risk and Yahtzee (the game, not the commentator) over and over and over again.
From the bottom of this fat ugly arrogant American's heart, thank you thank you thank you. Your board games are awesome.
From the bottom of this fat ugly arrogant American's heart, thank you thank you thank you. Your board games are awesome.
Back when I was in high school (Belgium)I can remember history classes focussing on:
Year 1: pre-history, rise of civilisations, mesopotamia, egypt, that stuff
Year 2: Greece and Rome mostly
Year 3: the great migration period, quick dark ages and medieval times
Year 4: from medieval times into renaissance and age of exploration.
Year 5: enlightenment, French revolution, Napoleonic wars, one class about the American war of independance, Belgian revolution and colonistation. Also a lot of focus on industrialisation, but that might be due to the fact I went to a "technical school".
Year 6: WW1, economic crisis of the 30's, WW2, Cold War and the emancipation of the colonies
And they tried to form a context and connections between the different subjects.
So we, at least, had some mention of the American war of independance. I distinctly remember learning about the 13 stripes and 13 colonies, the don't tread on me thing, the Boston tea party, the French involvement and the declaration of independance.
Year 1: pre-history, rise of civilisations, mesopotamia, egypt, that stuff
Year 2: Greece and Rome mostly
Year 3: the great migration period, quick dark ages and medieval times
Year 4: from medieval times into renaissance and age of exploration.
Year 5: enlightenment, French revolution, Napoleonic wars, one class about the American war of independance, Belgian revolution and colonistation. Also a lot of focus on industrialisation, but that might be due to the fact I went to a "technical school".
Year 6: WW1, economic crisis of the 30's, WW2, Cold War and the emancipation of the colonies
And they tried to form a context and connections between the different subjects.
So we, at least, had some mention of the American war of independance. I distinctly remember learning about the 13 stripes and 13 colonies, the don't tread on me thing, the Boston tea party, the French involvement and the declaration of independance.
Probably covered about as much as the Treaty Of Waitangi is.
This is a big deal for my country (New Zealand). We learn about this at every level of school in great detail. To New Zealanders this represents the forming of our country and a thorough screwing of the indigenous Maori population, to the British it is barely a footnote in a thousand year history of expansion across most of the globe and retreat to it's current position.
Likewise, we are not taught in schools how New Zealand was given administration over Samoa and really fucked it up. Again, very important for Samoa - not so much for us.
The bully who picked on you at school probably doesn't remember who you are - you're just another kid he stole lunch money from. To you though it was a life changing event.
This is a big deal for my country (New Zealand). We learn about this at every level of school in great detail. To New Zealanders this represents the forming of our country and a thorough screwing of the indigenous Maori population, to the British it is barely a footnote in a thousand year history of expansion across most of the globe and retreat to it's current position.
Likewise, we are not taught in schools how New Zealand was given administration over Samoa and really fucked it up. Again, very important for Samoa - not so much for us.
The bully who picked on you at school probably doesn't remember who you are - you're just another kid he stole lunch money from. To you though it was a life changing event.
It isn't taught as any sort of important curriculum. Even when I did the US at GCSE we only briefly glazed over it as basic background info that was never going to be on the test. After that, I have no taught knowledge of the American War for Independence.
...pejhmon said:
It was actually a Civil War, rather than a 'War of Independence'. We were declared a republic (The Commonwealth of England), with Cromwell as Lord Protector (basically a dictatorial role). And Cromwell was not the first Prime Minister, the first de facto Prime Minister is generally accepted as being Robert Walpole.
But OT: Although it obviously is a very BIG thing for y'all in the States, it doesn't matter all that much to us over the pond, and I don't remember being taught it at all really. We're too busy learning about the East India Company, and Olaudah Equiano, and other important British stuff from that time to spend much time on your wars.
English war for independance? Independance from who? You're thinking of the English civil war.pejhmon said:
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.
Back OT, don't remember being taught anything about the US war for independance. It's a small part of our history when you look at the big picture I suppose.