A question for those Brits in the Playground...

[blackfox]

...How do your British History classes deal with the American Revolution? Out of curiosity.

[Player_Zero]

They don't generally.

My history GCSE contained studies of the world wars... luddites... Medicine throughout time... Hmmm... That was about it really. Dunno about A-Levels but I'm fairly sure a load of that was devoted to communist Russia and whatnot at our school that year.

I wouldn't have thought there'd be a lot about it. I suppose different schools have different syllabuses, but there's no standard core material concerning the matter.

I also seem to recall something about conflict in Ireland and Germany pre-1950s... Oh well, I've forgotten over half that stuff by now anyhow.

Either way, history here works upon studying specific periods in specific locations style o' thing. Depending on your school's specification I suppose one of them may've been the American Revolution, but it won't be taught to everyone.

Also, it's 4AM so my facts may not be entirely reliable.

[Gaelbert]

...How do your British History classes deal with the American Revolution? Out of curiosity.

In addition to that, do they call it a civil war or revolution?

[Player_Zero]

In addition to that, do they call it a civil war or revolution?

Err... Wouldn't the American Civil War be the one between the southern states an' that? Not that I refer to it often, but I would call it the American Revolution. Whereas the British Civil War between Parlimentarians and Royalist would be something completely different.

[Gaelbert]

Err... Wouldn't the civil war be the one between the southern states an' that? Not that I refer to it often, but I would call it the American Revolution.

I'm confused.
I was just remarking on the fact that what some nations consider revolutions, others consider to be civil wars. The one between the North and the South is usually called "The Civil War," but that may just be because I live in America. And the "Revolutionary War" was the one that started in 1775.

[Player_Zero]

The usage of the phrase 'civil war' and the word 'revolution' are fairly interchangeable in this context I believe.

That is, if you're not talking about a specific instance. The American Revolution is different from the American Civil War, see.

I think we use 'civil war' to describe something that happens purely within a particular country.

Meh. Ask someone who knows more about words. When they wake up in about four hours. Because it's the middle of the night.

[thubby]

The usage of the phrase 'civil war' and the word 'revolution' are fairly interchangeable in this context I believe.

That is, if you're not talking about a specific instance. The American Revolution is different from the American Civil War, see.

I think we use 'civil war' to describe something that happens purely within a particular country.

Meh. Ask someone who knows more about words. When they wake up in about four hours. Because it's the middle of the night.

a "civil war" usually means that the revolting side lost.

[Player_Zero]

a "civil war" usually means that the revolting side lost.

But in the English Civil War there wasn't really a revolting side... Both Parlimentarians and Royalists had control over some dealies.

[TigerHunter]

I'm confused.
I was just remarking on the fact that what some nations consider revolutions, others consider to be civil wars. The one between the North and the South is usually called "The Civil War," but that may just be because I live in America. And the "Revolutionary War" was the one that started in 1775.
Case in point: the Civil War was referred to as the Second American Revolution in the Confederacy.

[skywalker]

Strictly speaking, we aren't the only colonies to have ever revolted. Sure, we were the first, and we've become the most powerful nation in the world since then, and being first probably gets us some distinction, but what we did isn't any different from what India, or Burma, or a host of smaller colonies did.

Being first is big in my book, but speaking from an American perspective, how much do you know about the Spanish American war, and the following Philippine insurrection, which is probably the closest we've come to losing our colonies through a large, concentrated effort? Most of our colonies have left in a way similar to Canada and Australia from the UK.

EDIT:
Case in point: the Civil War was referred to as the Second American Revolution in the Confederacy.

Although these days, we prefer the term "War of Northern Agression."


But in the English Civil War there wasn't really a revolting side... Both Parlimentarians and Royalists had control over some dealies.

I don't think the American Civil War was much different.

[Player_Zero]

Getting dangerously close to political discussion. [/Captain BringDown]

But I think the main point is: I don't think it matter that much.

Captain BringDown away!

[RS14]

After looking in the OED, I believe a civil war is one which occurs within a community or between citizens, and a revolution is any which involves an attempt to overthrow an existing government. Under this standard, I would consider the "American Revolution" to be neither (Wikipedia claims "American War of Independence" is an acceptable alternative), the "American Civil War" to be a Civil War but not a revolution (because it did not aim primarily to remove the government in Washington), and the "English Civil War" to be both (although my understanding of history is hazier here).

[FoE]

...How do your British History classes deal with the American Revolution? Out of curiosity.

Do you mean the revolution in 1776 or the invisible one in 1843?

[Player_Zero]

Do you mean the revolution in 1776 or the invisible one in 1843?

Or the imaginary one in 2375?

[Gaelbert]

After looking in the OED, I believe a civil war is one which occurs within a community or between citizens, and a revolution is any which involves an attempt to overthrow an existing government. Under this standard, I would consider the "American Revolution" to be neither (Wikipedia claims "American War of Independence" is an acceptable alternative), the "American Civil War" to be a Civil War but not a revolution (because it did not aim primarily to remove the government in Washington), and the "English Civil War" to be both (although my understanding of history is hazier here).

But the point of The War of 1776 was to overthrow colonial government? That's what I was taught, anyways. Although I have caught those buggers trying to brainwash me.
Think they can get away with teaching only one side... hah!


Do you mean the revolution in 1776 or the invisible one in 1843?

Or Shaye's Rebellion or the Whiskey Rebellion or the almost secession by South Carolina in 1833 or the fictional secession of Texas in Crimson Skies or... people really like seeing the U.S. pulled apart, don't they?

[FoE]

Or the imaginary one in 2375?

The one with the giant lizards?

[Player_Zero]

The one with the giant lizards?

No no no, that was in three thousand. I'm thinking about the one between the ocean and the sky.

[FoE]

No no no, that was in three thousand. I'm thinking about the one between the ocean and the sky.

Oh yeah ... that was a weird one.

Good thing the beaches were able to broker a peace deal. I was getting tired of wearing a gas mask.

[Player_Zero]

Yeah... That poo gas wasn't pleasant.

Back on topic: as long as there is no confusion it doesn't really matter, right?

[FoE]

I imagine the Brits don't talk about you American Revolution the same way us Canadians don't like to talk about Bryan Adams.

[Lupy]

Ahem... You both forgot about the war of "who's idea was including Canada anyway?!?!" in 2093. Ya know, "The mounties are coming, the mounties are coming!" :smalltongue:

---

My mother said that when she was in British schools 40 years ago they didn't discuss it at all.

[FoE]

Ahem... You both forgot about the war of "who's idea was including Canada anyway?!?!" in 2093. Ya know, "The mounties are coming, the mounties are coming!" :smalltongue:

Canada actually has a military, you know. They ride on woolly mammoths and wear polar bear fur into battle.

[Gaelbert]

I imagine the Brits don't talk about you American Revolution the same way us Canadians don't like to talk about Bryan Adams.

Wikipedia has Bryan Adams as a singer songwriter.:smallconfused: Do explain.

[FoE]

Wikipedia has Bryan Adams as a singer songwriter.:smallconfused: Do explain.

He's from Canada. But that's all I dare say.

He's always listening. And his follower ... his followers are legion, and they are terrible.

[someonenonotyou]

Canada actually has a military, you know. They ride on woolly mammoths and wear polar bear fur into battle.

What it does have a military, man i owe my freind five bucks
:smallbiggrin:stupid canada

[unstattedCommoner]

...How do your British History classes deal with the American Revolution? Out of curiosity.

They don't. If it isn't Romans, Normans, Tudors, Stuarts, Saxe-Coburg-Gothas or Windsors, it doesn't get taught.

[Castaras]

My history course consists of:

World war 1
The period between ww1 and ww2 in Germany
The period between ww1 and ww2 in America (prohibition mostly)

...yeah. Our history course is complete and utter @!$£. :smallsigh:

[hamishspence]

I remember "the Old West" in my history course, alongside China, and some medical history- circulation, Galen to Harvey, and the four humours.

[Evil DM Mark3]

We did cover it in passing as part of a study on slavery at Pre-GCSE, it was maybe half a lesson. As I recall major pre-GCSE school subjects are (in no particular order):
The Industrial Revolution.
WWI
Tudors. How Henry VII ended the war of the roses and reformed the courts etc by basically being a sly, deceiving, cheap bastard. How Henry VIII almost bankrupted us and fell out with the pope. Bloody Mary. The amazing Liz I avec The Spanish Armada. (that's right, I think we missed out Eddy...)
Stuarts (with a drive by at the British civil war)
Romans
Victorians (with, if you are lucky, a nod at Georgians)
The battle of Trafalgar.
Britain's part in establishing and later destroying the slave trade.
Castles.
The battle of Hastings, 1066


That is not to say I don't know about it. Infact I may know more than most Americans seeing as the stuff I read was intended as a "here is what you where taught in school, and why it was not 100% accurate". For example, I can say for certain fact that no one here in this playground can name 3 taxes in place in America at the time of the revolution.

[Evil DM Mark3]

Ahem... You both forgot about the war of "who's idea was including Canada anyway?!?!" in 2093. Ya know, "The mounties are coming, the mounties are coming!" :smalltongue:Just a quick pro-canadian military comment, if it where not for them Britain would have had an even rougher time during the second world war. After Dunkirk the only reason we had a fully equipped regiment in the UK is that it was a Canadian Regiment.

[Totally Guy]

You have to remember there is a lot of history over here.

To us the American war of Independence is just another blip on the historical timeline.

But in America it must be THE blip that starts it all so overlooking it would probably be some kind of cardinal sin.

[Arioch]

...How do your British History classes deal with the American Revolution? Out of curiosity.

Well, my GCSE history class included WW1, the build-up to WW2, the Civil Rights movement in America, the Suffragettes, and the 1919 treaties at Versailles. Before GCSE British history mostly consists of the Tudors, the Tudors, the Tudors, the Romans, the Tudors and a bit about the Stuarts. Oh, and the Tudors.

So...the American Revolution doesn't feature much. The Civil War was mentioned in connection to the Civil Rights movement, and I can outline the Boom, Bust and New Deal in detail, but the Revolution? Other than a passing mention in my current course in 19th century British politics (because of its connections to the French Revolution), it hasn't come up.

We do have over 2000 years of history to go through, though, so it's not that surprising. Although that does raise the question of why there is such an inordinate focus on the Tudors. :smallconfused: Maybe that's just the schools I've been to.

Stupid George III. Why couldn't he have gone mad with porphyria before losing us those colonies? :smalltongue:

[paddyfool]

I know I was never taught about it in school, although I only took History as far as GCSEs, not A-level. Overall, what I was taught pre-GCSE was broadly similar to what EvilDMMK had, plus a bit about the whole "stone age" -> "Bronze age" -> "Iron age" transition, plus a fair bit about the voyages of exploration and the subsequent Spanish & Portuguese colonial history (we never got as far as the Brits), plus a fair bit of stuff about historical research and how you do it, minus the Victorians & minus the Napoleonic war. At GCSE, the main focus was on WWI, the inter-war period, WW2, and the cold war (it was a specifically "Modern World History" course, designed to give people a chance of having half an understanding of how the world got where it was today).

Overall, a heck of a lot of the history I've learned I've had to learn outside of school, and I still consider a lot of what I know to be deeply unreliable. And now they're talking about scrapping history as a subject for under-13s entirely, and instead having some new pan-humanities subject following a merger with geography... grr.

[Kaelaroth]

I, a History student (among other things. I take History) have never, and most likely will never cover it. To be honest, it's not that interesting in comparison to other historical events. When we have touched upon it, we mainly mock how silly Americans are nowadays, and how lucky we are to be free of 'em, in jest, of course.
The only bit of American History I'm likely to study aside from their involvement in Eurasian Warfare is... Vietnam. Which could be considered Eurasian Warfare. And a bit on the Cold War, but primarily focusing on Russia, methinks.

[bosssmiley]

Canada actually has a military, you know. They ride on woolly mammoths and wear polar bear fur into battle.

We told the silly sods that mammoths were a bad idea for amphibious landings, but their drivers (aka "Canuckmahouts") just laughed, drove their charges off the ships and had them trundle along the coastal shelf with their trunks above the water until they swarmed up Juno Beach. Quite a sight apparently. :smallamused:

As for covering the US Tax Evasion of 1776 in history, it barely gets a mention unless you're studying Georgian foreign policy and colonial affairs.

It's not Anglocentrism, but rather that we Brits consider anything more recent than 1688 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_Revolution) to be current affairs. Forget the current fuss over revisions to the Act of Settlement or MacDonald-Campbell arguments over Glencoe (still a sore point today), did you know there are still social hostilities in England over which side your family fought on in the English Civil War! :smalleek:

[Faceist]

Huh. We never really touched on this in history. Pre-GCSE stuff was mainly an overview of the Tudor, Stuart and Victorian periods in British history, then GCSE was pretty much entirely WW1, then at A Level it was a dual course focusing seperately on nazi Germany and communist Russia. (With a gradual intersection as the course wore on and emphasis on comparing the two in terms of industry, sociopolitical goals, etc.)

[Oregano]

What do you mean? we still control America!:smalltongue:

It's a joke but we just don't cover it really, it gets mentioned occassionally but it's not that big of a deal really, you revolted, kicked us out, but we're still best buddies.

Of course, all felines are British and we plan to conquer the world, Chairman Meow shall lead us...muwahahahaha!!!

[reorith]

you guys should come back and collect on all those colonial taxes we still owe.
also, this thread is a reminder of why i love you guys.

[Evil DM Mark3]

you guys should come back and collect on all those colonial taxes we still owe.
also, this thread is a reminder of why i love you guys.You see this is what I was referencing earlier. Go on, name TWO taxes that where being collected at the time of the revolution.

[reorith]

You see this is what I was referencing earlier. Go on, name TWO taxes that where being collected at the time of the revolution.

none? hadn't the stamp acts been repealed in 1765?
edit: wikipedia says yes,
edit part 2: no wait the intolerable acts followed the boston tea party or something.
edit part 3: stamp act, tea act.

[Sub_Zero]

Well I'm in my second year of GCSE history and have covered just about every topic I think and there's been no mention at all of this revolution of yours. So far I've done two pieces of coursework, Haig in WWI and a piece on Stalin and how he came into power and stuff. Other than that I've done mainly the lead up to WWII including the treaty of Versailles.

[Evil DM Mark3]

At the time war was declared tea was the only thing being taxed. And to be fair Britian had almost bankrupted itself throwing the french out over the past few years, can you blame them for trying to get their money back?

Remember folks the call was "No taxation without representation."

[Flickerdart]

Since it's not taught in their schools, we must assume the American Revolution never happened, which sort of makes your Civil War a bit silly, no?

[Sub_Zero]

Since it's not taught in their schools, we must assume the American Revolution never happened, which sort of makes your Civil War a bit silly, no?

Well hey, I think America itself is a big conspiracy, I've never seen it, how do I know it really exists?

[Totally Guy]

My little brother likes to antagonize internet Americans and although it's a little off topic his hijinks were hilarious.

I remember him joining an online gun discussion by talking about some completely falsified historical data.

He made up an entire story about the British opressing the common American with "decency laws" requiring everyone to wear long sleeves at all times, even in the deep South. They got so fed up in the swealtering heat they actually took the issue to the constitution when it was drafted. And so it was granted that every American has the right to bare arms.

And the debate hit a wall. Some wanted historical backup and some people just bought it completely.

It was hilarious.

[RTGoodman]

Remember folks the call was "No taxation without representation."

Yeah, but if my American Military History professor was not lying, the Brits probably would have allowed Americans some representation - the Americans just would have turned it down because it wouldn't have made a difference (what with the distance and all), and "No Taxation Without Representation!" was already a good slogan! :smallbiggrin: Seriously, though, the Brits may have been (as the colonists said) usurping their liberties or whatever, but the Americans were hankerin' for revolution for a while and probably would have eventually broken off anyway, even without the taxes and stuff.

[Evil DM Mark3]

There was a lot of bad feeling sure, but most of the people involved in the declaration where trying to send a message, not start a revolution. I mean think about it, they where leaving the biggest economic and political power in the world.

If Pitt the Elder had become Prime Minister sooner he would have probably given them what they wanted, after all he was the one who convinced the house to get rid of the French in the first place.

But here is not the place to get into this.

[Z-dan]

I second sub-zero's opinion. America's supposed to be this 'land of the free' and everything's bigger and better than our stuff... it's just part of the government conspiracy to give us someone else to blame for bad stuff.
And yeah, the American revolution just gets told through hearsay... and through the americans banging on about it- yes, we know you kicked us out, and yes, we know you saved us in world war 2, but get over yourselves already :smalltongue: we've been invaded more times than (probably) any other country and yet we move on, and start poking fun at the french/germans/americans- just so long as it doesn't happen again we're cool :smallcool:
As a nation we prefer thinking of our history in terms of us having the biggest empire ever, and horribly mistreating the people under our control- so we'd like to sit back and relax like the australians to let everyone sort out their differences but Tony Blair thought it'd be a better idea to make us look willing to help...
*takes breath*
ooh look, you got me talking all political...
Oh yeah, and at school we only covered ww1 and 2, "medicine through time", prehistory, and a bit about the IRA and the American West...

[Gaelbert]

American West? Really? That's just bizarre. What is everyone's obsession with that? Clint Eastwood, maybe? :smalltongue:

[Evil DM Mark3]

I second sub-zero's opinion. America's supposed to be this 'land of the free' and everything's bigger and better than our stuff... it's just part of the government conspiracy to give us someone else to blame for bad stuff.
And yeah, the American revolution just gets told through hearsay... and through the americans banging on about it- yes, we know you kicked us out, and yes, we know you saved us in world war 2,Historically inaccurate but hey.

Something occurs to me, you do all realise that Great Britian is the oldest nation in the world right?

I just had an awesome idea. I want to live long enough to be able to do this.

On 14 October 2066 I am going to sit on the beach of Dover with a sign that says "Welcome to Britian, no successful invasions for 1000 years."

[Sub_Zero]

Historically inaccurate but hey.

Something occurs to me, you do all realise that Great Britian is the oldest nation in the world right?

I just had an awesome idea. I want to live long enough to be able to do this.

On 14 October 2066 I am going to sit on the beach of Dover with a sign that says "Welcome to Britian, no successful invasions for 1000 years."

That sounds like a great plan. Hmm, 2066 huh? that'd make me......58+15=73!
That's if we're not invaded by then:smalleek:

[Mauve Shirt]

I'm just going to have to invade England before 2066. :smalltongue:

[Oregano]

I'm just going to have to invade England before 2066. :smalltongue:

But you won't be successful, that's what's important.

[Scorpina]

The only American History we studied in my school was The Great Depression. I'm only tangentally aware of what the American Revolution is...

[Mauve Shirt]

I would've invaded England this past summer, successfully, but that ended up not working for health reasons.

[Mummy king]

I'm doing a history GCSE right now, and the two topics our paper deals with are America post-WWI and the rise in power of the Nazi party, so can't help you there!

[unstattedCommoner]

Historically inaccurate but hey.

Something occurs to me, you do all realise that Great Britian is the oldest nation in the world right?


The Kingdom of Great Britain was created in 1707, whereas the Kingdom of Spain has been around since at least 1492.

[Evil DM Mark3]

The Kingdom of Great Britain was created in 1707, whereas the Kingdom of Spain has been around since at least 1492.The acts of union of 1707 turned two states under the same ruler into one state. The continuous state began in 1066 with the Norman conquest, it's expansion is not an issue.

[Don Julio Anejo]

Guys. Look on the bright side. You didn't have to take Canadian history. We learned about Louis-frickin-Riel for 4 months. If you have no idea who that is, well, you're not missing out much. Just shows how much history we have...

PS: Canadian military decided to abandon wooly mammoths in favour of camels after they found them unsuitable for desert warfare in and around Afghanistan.


The acts of union of 1707 turned two states under the same ruler into one state. The continuous state began in 1066 with the Norman conquest, it's expansion is not an issue.

But then wouldn't France be the world's oldest state, counting back to Clovis?

[Fri]

The Kingdom of Great Britain was created in 1707, whereas the Kingdom of Spain has been around since at least 1492.

Meh, The Kingdom of Japan had been around since at least the 700s (might be older). I think it's even direct lineage of emperor/dynasty thing. And if we count Modern China as the continuation of ancient china, they've been around even longer.

[Thiel]

The acts of union of 1707 turned two states under the same ruler into one state. The continuous state began in 1066 with the Norman conquest, it's expansion is not an issue.

Well, Denmark has been around since mid 8th century.

[Evil DM Mark3]

I think I need to recite my source on this one...

[Evil DM Mark3]

OK checking back with my source apparently it works like this. Great Britain is a continuation of the Constitutional Monarchy created in 1066 and then officially confirmed in the Magna Carta of 1215 (a document that apparently forms the basis of almost all law and president in the English speaking world, right to trial by jury for example.) whereas the other examples mentioned are not the same continuation. France for example changed from an Absolute Monarchy to a Republic, as has Japan.

Even during the republic the nation ran off the same constitutional basis, a nice technicality brought about by the fact that Cromwell basically tried (and in fact technically succeeded) to turn himself into the first in a line of hereditary protectors.

It may seem petty, but I like it. The UK gets a lot of bad rap but it is still a very powerful nation all in all, even only because of all the clubs it is in. Don't hate me for liking the nation I was born in.

[LordOfXoriat]

-edit_deleted-

[Death, your friend the Reaper]

The real question is how can they still not know what side of a cricket bat is the right side? Even after we send people out to teach them at such things as the Ashes?

Really, I'm disappointed with the little Brits:smalltongue:, and don't get me started on rugby *rolls eyes*

Definitely need remedial lessons:smallwink: Preemptive dodge from a bat (held wrongly) from Charity/AE

[skywalker]

OK checking back with my source apparently it works like this. Great Britain is a continuation of the Constitutional Monarchy created in 1066 and then officially confirmed in the Magna Carta of 1215 (a document that apparently forms the basis of almost all law and president in the English speaking world, right to trial by jury for example.) whereas the other examples mentioned are not the same continuation. France for example changed from an Absolute Monarchy to a Republic, as has Japan.

Even during the republic the nation ran off the same constitutional basis, a nice technicality brought about by the fact that Cromwell basically tried (and in fact technically succeeded) to turn himself into the first in a line of hereditary protectors.

It may seem petty, but I like it. The UK gets a lot of bad rap but it is still a very powerful nation all in all, even only because of all the clubs it is in. Don't hate me for liking the nation I was born in.

That's a pretty cool little technicality there. Wikipedia says nothing about a Constitutional Monarchy starting in 1066, altho I'm sure the Magna Carta gives you an early enough date anyway.

I think we needed it (independence) anyway, we're quite different from you guys. Like Ben Franklin said.

I find this whole history juxtaposition rather intriguing, since I know quite a bit about British history. I'm right there with you about the War of the Roses, English Civil War, Tudors, etc. I think one reason there's a focus on Tudors is because they're so damned complex. Also, it wouldn't really hurt to say "Yeah, we don't like to talk about the American Revolution (or whatever you want to call it)." Besides the AR, tho, the 1700s are a fairly peaceful time as far as Britain is concerned, especially compared to the two centuries surrounding it. Cromwell and Napoleon indeed.

[CurlyKitGirl]

From Y7 onward it was (incomplete list though):
The Romans (with some Celtic stuff thrown in)
The Tudors
North American Indians and their Culture
The American Civil War and Slavery

GCSE:
Coursework - Haig and the Somme and The Great Depression in America
1919 - 1939 - Peace Treaties and Germany
The Home Front - lots of politics here - the Liberals
Women's Suffrage

AS Medieval History; A2 Medieval History.

But my friends in Modern History are doing either the America Option (Vietnam and the like) or the Russia Option with compulsory modules in between.

We did cover the American Revolution in Y8 when we were doing the North American Indians and their Culture + misc. America bits. Like the Civil War; but not in very muc detail.

[Serpentine]

Technically British (have to get that passport...), so: I didn't really do all that much history in school, oddly enough, and I can remember even less. I did do one class specifically on revolutions, though. It had the British (English?) Revolution, the French, some others I don't remember, and I think the American. Can't really remember anything about it, though. I think my university offers a unit on the revolution, but it might actually be the civil war. Incidentally:

Civil war n war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country.
revolution n 1a a fundamental political change, esp the overthrow of one government and the substitution of another
I think they're two quite different things, but one may lead to the other or they could both be involved in a single historical event.

[Charity]

The real question is how can they still not know what side of a cricket bat is the right side? Even after we send people out to teach them at such things as the Ashes?

Really, I'm disappointed with the little Brits:smalltongue:, and don't get me started on rugby *rolls eyes*

Definitely need remedial lessons:smallwink: Preemptive dodge from a bat (held wrongly) from Charity/AE

Archie, get the wood chipper revved up, Deaths at it again...

http://www.starnursery.com/images/items/577305.jpg

He never learns.

[Athaniar]

Well hey, I think America itself is a big conspiracy, I've never seen it, how do I know it really exists?

It's all part of the lizards' plan. Just wait until 3000...

[Hzurr]

It may seem petty, but I like it. The UK gets a lot of bad rap but it is still a very powerful nation all in all, even only because of all the clubs it is in. Don't hate me for liking the nation I was born in.


Sorry, we're American. We're used to people automatically hating us for the nation we were born in :smalltongue:

Overall, my knowledge of British History is very weak. I mean, I recognize the big names in History, but if I was truely pressed to discuss more than a dozen kings/queens of Britain, I'd be hard pressed (other than simply playing the logic game: If there was a Henry VIII, that means there must have been a I-VII).

Actually, now that I think about it, most of the few kings/queens I do know are from Shakespeare (Yay Henry V!)

It's actually kindof sad that y'all don't deal with the American revolution much. While some of the people involved were slightly douche-ish, you have a couple of people like Washington who were some of the most amazing men in history. (Seriously, Washington = Cincinnatus. They're basically the same person, except for the part about hating the plebs.)

On a separate note: How on earth do British Queens manage to live so long? It seems like Lizzy has been around forever.

[Arioch]

On a separate note: How on earth do British Queens manage to live so long? It seems like Lizzy has been around forever.

Not all queens reign for ages. Look at Mary Tudor, or Lady Jane Grey. There just doesn't seem to be much middle ground: you reign for ages, or for barely any time at all. It might be because Britain only gets a queen as a last resort if no men are available. In the face of the huge amounts of prejudice against them, a queen has to be good at what she does (i.e. Elizabeth I, Victoria) or she'll go down quickly.

Re Elizabeth II, she came to the throne quite young, like Queen Victoria. If she stays alive until 2013 she'll have been our longest-reigning monarch ever. Interesting fact: Prince Charles now holds the world record for longest-lasting heir apparent. That must annoy him so much. :smalltongue:

And as to the oldest nation in the world thing, it depends how you define a nation. I personally wouldn't say that France became a new nation after the Revolution - the country just changed hands. The oldest continuous national entity in the world is China - by which I mean that, for 2100 years, there has been a nation called China, occupying the same area (excluding expansions) and containing people of the same race and culture.

[Irenaeus]

We had about the Amercan Revolution, but I'm not British. Just a quick related question, how is the Vietnam war depicted in American schoolbooks?

[Hzurr]

We had about the Amercan Revolution, but I'm not British. Just a quick related question, how is the Vietnam war depicted in American schoolbooks?

It's depicted in a largely negative light. Mainly that it was dragged on for far too long, the American people were strongly against it, it was poorly managed and largely without purpose. Overall, it's considered one of the bigger mistakes of American history. Hmm...yeah, I'd say it's in the top 5 or so of "Times we screwed up really bad"

Nowadays, though, most of the history profs that I had are quick to point out that it wasn't just mistakes made by the American government, but by the American public as well. A lot of the soldiers who were sent to Vietnam had heard stories from their parents about WW2, and really thought they were serving their country, and would be welcomed as heroes (both when they went, and when they returned) much like the soldiers of WW2 were. Not only were they very poorly received in Vietnam, but when they returned they were treated like crap. This is why even the people who are against the current war usually go out of their way to emphasize that they support the troops regardless, because we screwed it up so badly after Vietnam.

[Arioch]

It's at times like this I wonder what happened to that Historians in the Playground thing that came up a couple of months ago. That could have been fun, but it just sort of died out. I'd like to see it happen. :smallsmile:


Nowadays, though, most of the history profs that I had are quick to point out that it wasn't just mistakes made by the American people, but by the American public as well.

Wha? :smallconfused:

[Hzurr]

Wha? :smallconfused:

*Ahh, my mistake: It should have been "American Government" and "American public" I'll go fix that now.

[Irenaeus]

It's depicted in a largely negative light. Mainly that it was dragged on for far too long, the American people were strongly against it, it was poorly managed and largely without purpose. Overall, it's considered one of the bigger mistakes of American history. Hmm...yeah, I'd say it's in the top 5 or so of "Times we screwed up really bad"

Nowadays, though, most of the history profs that I had are quick to point out that it wasn't just mistakes made by the American government, but by the American public as well. A lot of the soldiers who were sent to Vietnam had heard stories from their parents about WW2, and really thought they were serving their country, and would be welcomed as heroes (both when they went, and when they returned) much like the soldiers of WW2 were. Not only were they very poorly received in Vietnam, but when they returned they were treated like crap. This is why even the people who are against the current war usually go out of their way to emphasize that they support the troops regardless, because we screwed it up so badly after Vietnam.Thanks for the answer and the addendum about the current "support the troops"-thingy, that part have had me at bit baffled at times. It's just interesting to see how portrayed countries portray their own less glorious moments. A friend of mine from the states said the Vietnam War was not mentioned at all in his books, and that puzzled me a great deal. I'm glad to see that such a situation is probably a rarity.


Wha? :smallconfused:I think this part was a reference to condemming the veterans together with the war. Considering the forums we are using to discuss this on, I guess we can just conclude that "most of the history profs that I had" stated this, and move on.

[LordOfXoriat]

-edit_deleted-

[TheBST]

On a separate note: How on earth do British Queens manage to live so long? It seems like Lizzy has been around forever.

Same reason Keith Richards is still around: riches and the medicines they can buy.

At school didn't even do page 1 of the American Revolution. On American History we did Vietnam, the Civil Rights movement and Prohibition. (Infinitely more interesting if you ask me). It made a nice chnage from our usual schedule of Nazi Germany and The Tudors.

[Irenaeus]

That's funny, Irenaeus. I'm from the US, and while my class is only up to the framing of the Constitution (right after the Revolution), I'm told we spend a great deal of time on Vietnam (it's a two-year course, so we have the time). Reading ahead in the two textbooks we have, one seems to be very negative towards the Vietnam War and spends a lot of time focusing on protesters, and the other looks like it's going for a more balanced approach, separating the facts and events of the war from the public reaction.That is quite interesting, it seems like it is a prioritized subject. Thank you. From what I gather about the whole "intelligent design"-debacle every school (or state? county?) decides what to include in its own curriculum. Is that so? That would surely account for a good deal of regional variation.

[skywalker]

Same reason Keith Richards is still around: riches and the medicines they can buy.

At school didn't even do page 1 of the American Revolution. On American History we did Vietnam, the Civil Rights movement and Prohibition. (Infinitely more interesting if you ask me). It made a nice chnage from our usual schedule of Nazi Germany and The Tudors.

And you wonder why Americans think the rest of the world has a "hate the USA" agenda...


We had about the Amercan Revolution, but I'm not British. Just a quick related question, how is the Vietnam war depicted in American schoolbooks?

In my U.S. History class (which was the only History class that came close to addressing Vietnam, all the others were specifically focused on other stuff), we didn't do Vietnam. It was an AP prep course (AP gets you university credit) and the teacher's logic went like this: I have graded these tests for a kazillion years, each one has had maybe 1 question about Vietnam, Vietnam is 10 years out of 200, and most of my kids have some idea about it. Let's spend time on things like muckrakers, who most people know nothing about.

That said, I did look at how my book talked about Vietnam, and I was surprised about its fairly nuanced position. It focused on how new forms of media changed the war (and popular opinion about it) immensely, and how that was a watershed moment in the relationship between media, the general public, and military operations.

I'm actually rather surprised by what seems to me a comparatively lackluster history education in other countries. I know all about the French Revolution, the English Civil War, Cromwell and those guys. I know I had to memorize that particular succession, as well. It went James, Charles, Cromwell, Charles, James. That one is embedded in my brain. By contrast, I know very little academically about the Tudors, most of my knowledge is from pop culture stuff and Wikipedia. I know the Russian Revolution, and of course the World Wars. I'm also quasi-familiar with Ancient China a long with Boxer-era happenings, and what was going on in the Islamic world since, well, since it was an Islamic world.

Of course, the private school I attended enforced 3 years of history including rather rigorous courses in world and US history, and both histories in middle school as well. So maybe my experience is atypical.

EDIT: Oh, and it's usually at county level that public school cirricula are decided. I'm sure the state and rarely, the country dictate a few things, but I'm thinking it's at the county level where stuff is decided. I could be wrong, tho. I spent the last 8 years of my prep education at a private school, after all.

[keldorn]

Being somewhat older than most of the other posters here, I had a look for my reference book (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1066_and_All_That) but I think it must be at parents' home. Whilst O-levels when I did them - the predecessor to the GCSE mentioned by others - was focussed on modern history, earlier history teaching was much more extensive than reported by younger people. At least this was the case in prep school (fee-paying school for kids up to 13). We started with the Romans in the first form (age 7) and at some point started on this series of books that had a red cover for the middle ages and Tudors, a pale blue cover for the Stuarts through Napoleonic War and a Grey cover for the latest history which may have strated with the Reform Acts in 1832. There would have been a mention of a tea party after we had covered Wolfe securing Canada.

[Irenaeus]

And you wonder why Americans think the rest of the world has a "hate the USA" agenda...You live in a extremely high-profile nation with a very active foreign policy. People will have strong opinions about this, and the negative opinions are always the loudest. I personally have very conflicting views on America as a whole, but it seems like many Amercans have that as well. That said, I'll leave this one alone.


In my U.S. History class (which was the only History class that came close to addressing Vietnam, all the others were specifically focused on other stuff), we didn't do Vietnam. It was an AP prep course (AP gets you university credit) and the teacher's logic went like this: I have graded these tests for a kazillion years, each one has had maybe 1 question about Vietnam, Vietnam is 10 years out of 200, and most of my kids have some idea about it. Let's spend time on things like muckrakers, who most people know nothing about.Sounds logical. It does open for single students being quite ignorant on the subject, but it would probably work for most.


That said, I did look at how my book talked about Vietnam, and I was surprised about its fairly nuanced position. It focused on how new forms of media changed the war (and popular opinion about it) immensely, and how that was a watershed moment in the relationship between media, the general public, and military operations.Sounds interesting. Thanks for your answer!


I'm actually rather surprised by what seems to me a comparatively lackluster history education in other countries. I know all about the French Revolution, the English Civil War, Cromwell and those guys. I know I had to memorize that particular succession, as well. It went James, Charles, Cromwell, Charles, James. That one is embedded in my brain. By contrast, I know very little academically about the Tudors, most of my knowledge is from pop culture stuff and Wikipedia. I know the Russian Revolution, and of course the World Wars. I'm also quasi-familiar with Ancient China a long with Boxer-era happenings, and what was going on in the Islamic world since, well, since it was an Islamic world.I think "other countries" might be a too diverse group to make any sweeping statements about wether their education is lackluster or not. I'm sure we all had quite diferent things on the curriculum, but unless you compare the entire list of subjects from each school, you don't really have much grounds of comparison. You could make a statement about British schools not teaching much American history.



Of course, the private school I attended enforced 3 years of history including rather rigorous courses in world and US history, and both histories in middle school as well. So maybe my experience is atypical.

EDIT: Oh, and it's usually at county level that public school cirricula are decided. I'm sure the state and rarely, the country dictate a few things, but I'm thinking it's at the county level where stuff is decided. I could be wrong, tho. I spent the last 8 years of my prep education at a private school, after all.Thanks for the information. What is the main difference between a private school and a public school as an attending student? We don't really have much of that here so the concept is a bit alien to me.

[RMS Oceanic]

Northern Irish perspective time! (We're part of the UK, but not Britain. There's a difference)

Primary School:
Vikings/The Great Potato Famine/Victorians

Years 1-3 of Secondary School:
Romans
Norman Invasion of England
Henry II's invasion of Ireland
Some Tudor Stuff
English Civil Wars
Oliver Cromwell in Ireland (He's perhaps the most reviled historical figure in Hiberno-Catholic society)
The Glorious Revolution of 1688, the Siege of (London)derry and the Battle of the Boyne
More on the Famine
The Home Rule movement.
The Easter Rising, and the Anglo-Irish War

GCSE
History of Medicine (It's funny how the four humours theory stretched from Greek Antiquity to the 19th Century)
A study of Northern Irish Politics since the Partition of 1922 (i.e. The Troubles)
Weimar and Nazi Germany (1919-1945) [We could have chosen the Wild West]

America doesn't get much of a mention in my local curriculum. Of course, I've read plenty about other areas of History, and Simon Schama and his History of Britain helped a lot too, although his description of Thomas Becket's murder robbed me of a few hours of sleep.

[toasty]

[QUOTE=Irenaeus;5486661
Thanks for the information. What is the main difference between a private school and a public school as an attending student? We don't really have much of that here so the concept is a bit alien to me.[/QUOTE]

I've never actually attended school (homeschooled) but a public school receives a lot more public funds and the government has more control over what they teach. Private schools can be stuff like faith-based schools (Catholic schools) or more preppy expesnive schools. Public schools are just "normal" schools. However, I should note that all the people I've talked to usually deride public schools as providing a worse level of education. But I've also been told that it varies from place to place.

But I'm homeschooled and have never been inside a public (or private for that matter) American school as I've lived my entire life overseas.

[Irenaeus]

I've never actually attended school (homeschooled) but a public school receives a lot more public funds and the government has more control over what they teach. Private schools can be stuff like faith-based schools (Catholic schools) or more preppy expesnive schools. Public schools are just "normal" schools. However, I should note that all the people I've talked to usually deride public schools as providing a worse level of education. But I've also been told that it varies from place to place.

But I'm homeschooled and have never been inside a public (or private for that matter) American school as I've lived my entire life overseas.Interesting. So private schools have greater variation than public schools, then?

I've heard the term homeschooled used a lot in a few debates. Does this mean that you have been taught by a private teacher at home, or by your parents? Does this have any quality control?

And for you in particular, would it not be easier - socially speaking - to attend a local school if you are new to the country, or was there a linguistic barrier that prevented that?

[Ecalsneerg]

When I did history here in Scotland, we didn't even cover outside of Scotland most of the time. We did a lot on Victorian Scotland, and the Jacobites. Oh god, the Jacobites. Like, most of the year on them.

[skywalker]

You live in a extremely high-profile nation with a very active foreign policy. People will have strong opinions about this, and the negative opinions are always the loudest. I personally have very conflicting views on America as a whole, but it seems like many Amercans have that as well. That said, I'll leave this one alone. I was mainly pointing out that your educational system seemed to pick three things that could be described as "That time we fought against not being racist," "that time we banned liquor because we love determining a citizen's private rights," and "the only time we've lost a war." You could get a very skewed perspective very fast if you weren't careful.

Sounds logical. It does open for single students being quite ignorant on the subject, but it would probably work for most.

Sounds interesting. Thanks for your answer! Of course, I'm sure this isn't anything to you, but he was probably the best instructor I had at the high school level. His students made consistently better grades on the AP exams than the other instructor in that subject.


I think "other countries" might be a too diverse group to make any sweeping statements about wether their education is lackluster or not. I'm sure we all had quite diferent things on the curriculum, but unless you compare the entire list of subjects from each school, you don't really have much grounds of comparison. You could make a statement about British schools not teaching much American history. Yes, you're right. I was mainly a bit shocked (and honestly jealous) that I had to learn all those kings/protectors and stuff but you guys don't know much about my history. I mean, I love history and I would've learned it anyway, but... :smallannoyed:


Thanks for the information. What is the main difference between a private school and a public school as an attending student? We don't really have much of that here so the concept is a bit alien to me.

I wrote an absolute novel. For those interested in the differences in private and public school as this kid (who experienced both) saw them, here ya go:

It's kinda like toasty said. Private schools tend to come in the religious and non-religious flavor, altho even the non-religious schools can have some serious religion going on. In my high school, we had daily assembly which was still called "chapel." We no longer had readings from the Christian bible, but it was still called chapel, which would never fly in an American public school. There are other religious private schools besides Catholic schools as well. There are 4-5 private high schools in the area surrounding me, and all but the one I went to are religiously backed, altho by other churches than the Catholic one.

Every private school I've ever heard of is a "prep school," that is, specifically geared toward preparing the student for college. To that end, they only accept students who plan on going to college, have the intellectual and sometimes monetary capacity to go to college. By contrast, public schools must accept nearly everyone (discipline cases accepted), and so they suffer from trying to engage students who will never see college in prep-style courses. I'm not sure what it's like in Britain, seeing as how most of my knowledge of British education comes from Harry Potter, but recently, in the U.S, there's been some movement towards "academy style high schools," which I consider similar to the Mexican system of secondary education. At their freshman or sophomore year (when most students would be between ages 14 and 16), all students are put in a specific track based on their life goals and expectations. One of these is a college prep track, while there are others like pre-professional track (for those planning on a specific trade). In my district, the schools that have gained a reputation as "bad" schools have been converted to this, a long with the brand new school that was just built.

What toasty says about public schools being derided is true to a certain degree, altho as I explained, private schools have a leg up in being able to choose who they admit. There are certainly some public schools which outweigh certain private schools academically. In my own personal case, my parents sent me to private school not necessarily for the education I got, but for the environment. My zoned public school was Oak Ridge High School. Oak Ridge Tennessee was one of 3 sites that contributed to the buidling of the first atomic bombs (which we like to call "the bomb." Why? I'm not sure. Perhaps we think it's more important because it was actually used?), and is still populated by 3 national science labs and associated personnel. Because of this, the children tend to be rather smart and rather driven, and so the schools get a lot of funding and attention. However, Oak Ridge is also a small enough town that it only needs one high school. This means that many different groups get mixed together, and racial/social conflict occurs. To avoid me getting mixed up in that, and to make it easier for colleges to notice me, they sent me to private school.

At my school, I was surrounded by people of the same economic, racial, and intellectual background, barring a few individuals who were on scholarships for being smart, being academic, and one person in every grade (ours was a girl) who was there to remind us there were people besides us (rich white kids) in the world. These people on scholarship had a much tighter rope to walk as far as discipline went than those who weren't. An interesting part of private school that reminds me of, we had "lockers" but not locks, with the idea that respect for the privacy of others and an honor code prohibiting stealing would suffice to protect our stuff. It overwhelmingly did. Only one person was caught stealing that I know of over the 7 years I was there, immediately expelled, and there were almost never reports of anything missing.

Because I spent the elementary portion of my school career in public school, I do have some baseline for comparison. I think there are similar things. For instance, there are still bullies. I got to be bullied by kids sharing my race, economic background, and (reasonably speaking) whose parents shared my parents' political creed. I learned basically the same cirriculum. The main difference arises from the lack of hardship. We had all the books we needed, and a set limit on class size that was not exceeded. At the cafeteria, we paid for the whole year in advance, so there was no lunch money or that sort situation. We had nice shiny new playground equipment and our athletic facilities were quite nice, always named after the donor who contributed the most to them being quite nice. I think it should be noted that I went to the nicest public elementary school in my city, it was one of the nicest in the region, I've heard. But it didn't even come close to comparing. Moving into high school, the level of trust placed on students was much higher. No metal detectors at entry doors, no police, no locks on lockers. Teachers sometimes left students alone during exams. They weren't encouraged to do so, but they weren't specifically discouraged from it either. It was expected that everyone would go to university after graduation. In fact, to make sure the school kept it's 100% graduate enrollment rate, there was an unwritten rule that every student must attend at least one semester straight out of high school. Finally, the last thing I can think of is that the school had so many fewer students. At my elementary school, the classes were between 22 and 30 students. At the elementary level in the private school, there was a hard limit of 22. More generally, a school noted for being small in my city has 777 students in grades 9-12. The school I graduated from had ~1000 in K-12 (the entire pre-University system, excluding pre-school!).

I think that public schools are more mixed, altho schools like mine are more common than you might think. Knoxville is so skewed geographically and economically that public schools near where I went to high school have nearly as high a rate of university enrollment as mine did, whereas the schools surrounding downtown do not.

[Serpentine]

It's just interesting to see how portrayed countries portray their own less glorious moments.One of the most passionate holidays of Australia* commemorates what was quite possibly our greatest defeat. Granted, it celebrates other battles, etc., but Galipoli always takes the spotlight.

>highfives all Turks in the Playground<


No metal detectors at entry doors, no police, no locks on lockers.This may be the thing about the US that shocks - nay, horrifies me - me the most. Cops, at a school? With guns?! My school hired a security guard for exactly one night of the year: Muck-up Day Eve.
A lot of the things you listed, apparently positively, about private schools (and Australia seems to have pretty much the same situation, except for the prep-school bit) are the things I dislike about them. I.e. the elitism and exclusivity, the inaccessibility to the non-rich, the obviously more funding than public schools, etc. Of course, much of this is simply intrinsic to their nature (though if what I heard about private schools in Australia being at least as well funded by the government as public is true, I am very peeved).
In Aus, it's a state-wide curriculum, with a push to make it nation-wide.


*ANZAC Day, for the uninitiated.

[Arioch]

Yes, you're right. I was mainly a bit shocked (and honestly jealous) that I had to learn all those kings/protectors and stuff but you guys don't know much about my history. I mean, I love history and I would've learned it anyway, but... :smallannoyed:

Well, to be fair, we do have a lot more of it than you. :smalltongue:
I know a fair bit about American history, both from school and from outside reading. I mean, I couldn't give you dates, but I know roughly what happened. I just haven't looked at it academically. But then I don't know anything about the history of, to take a country at random, my nation's long-standing allies, Portugal, so I suppose your history gets more coverage than most.

[paddyfool]

I suppose another part of the imbalance is that a fair bit of British history is kind of also USA history, since the US was part of the bad old Brits* before independence, and its legal system is still founded on old Common Law going back to the Magna Carta & before. Which is why the English and American legal systems are more similar than, say, the English and the Scottish systems.

So, a question to help illuminate the issue: If you (our American friends) were to recommend us one book on American history, what would it be?

* Potted British history:
1066-1939: Bad old Brits
1939-1945: Heroic Brits
1945-present: Bored snarky Brits

[Aotrs Commander]

I don't think we covered American history at all at school, save perhaps in passing with regard to the slave trade and the world wars.

The latter of which, to my great disgust as an armchair military historian, we did but mainly concentrated on the social aspects. Call me crazy, y'know, but I always thought that one of the more important aspects of a World War, was y'know, the actual WAR? Skimming over it seemed a strange...

Of course, there was also the fact we spent THREE FREAKIN' YEARS on the industrial and agricultural revolution and Richard bloody Arkwright (GSCEs...) which are just about the most dull and insipid period of British history.

(Still, it was the only GCSE I got an A on, probaly because of sheer dint of repetition...)

The reason is obviously, while the American Revolution is of important to the Americans, it was a but a footnote in British history and, let's be honest one that's rather less interesting than the endlessly fascinating Romans or the Vikings...

I mean, we got beaten, yes, but, sorry US chaps and chapesses, you didn't give us a proper drubbing, no way. We've got centuries of real, serious getting-the-crap-kicked-out-of-us to learn about (and some jolly fun moments stiffing the French/Spanish...) Charge of the Light Brigade, for example. We even made a poem about that one...1

And, no, America, we haven't forgotten you waited until we were fighting the French before you Sneak Attacked us... I mean, seriously; that was just Not Cricket! Allying with the French! That was low. We're very hurt. One of these days, we're going to make you very hurt too...

(I here plans are afoot to airdrop Anne Robinson into the US to give you all a good, stern talking to. And if that doesn't work, we'll all write polite letters to our local newspapers expressing our mild displeasure! That'll learn yeh.)



Humourus nearly-aside: A friend of mine once worked with a fellow from the US. He was humming the refrain to the 1812 Overture one day and the American expressed his surprise that he would be doing that. My friend asked why was surprised to find the fellow genuinely thought it had been written in support of the US in the War of 1812...



1Typically British, we venerate the heroic but utterly pointless Charge of the Light Brigade while the Charge of the Heavy Brigade in the same battle, arguably the single most effective cavalry action in the entire of history (900 dragoons vrs 2000 cavalry, resulting in the Russians being routed) is largely neglected (though at least the Highlander's Thin Red Line of the same battle is remembered better).

This should give you an insight into the British - especially English - mentality...we'd rather remember when we fracked it up royally than when we actually did it right...2

2Um..and that's why we suck at sports and stuff. 'Cos we like to lose. Yeah. Plus, it'd be, like, unsporting not to let Johnny Foreigner3 win something. Y'know, to make up for them not being British. Sort of a...consolation prize y'see...

Yeah. Let's go with that. That's almost completely credible.

3Slang, English; lit. "anyone who does not hail from the United Kingdom; especially if they don't speak English or have a funny accent (i.e an accent whose origin is not specifically located within the British mainland), and frankly we're not sure about some of them in it sometimes, e.g. our dear comrades in Scotland and Wales or Ant And/Or Dec."

[WalkingTarget]

Humourus nearly-aside: A friend of mine once worked with a fellow from the US. He was humming the refrain to the 1812 Overture one day and the American expressed his surprise that he would be doing that. My friend asked why was surprised to find the fellow genuinely thought it had been written in support of the US in the War of 1812...

Heh. As much as we get force-fed our own history, it's not exactly commonplace for our educational system to talk much about the Battle of Borodino when we had our very own war going on that same year (and our war had the year in the name, as did the song, so nyeh :smalltongue:).

I weep for my countrymen.

We're not one to sneer at commandeering a good (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Country,_%27Tis_of_Thee) tune (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_Save_The_Queen) for our own purposes when it suits us either, but we're not alone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_bell_march) there. :smallwink:

[LordOfXoriat]

-edit_deleted-

[ocato]

When I was in high school, my AP (advanced placement, gives College Credit) American History teacher told us that she'd taught US history in Britain for a few years sometime in the past. According to her, the British version goes something like this:

"So, the Americans wanted their own country, so we sent a few blokes over to shoot at them, but they really wanted it so we let em have it because whatever, they're ugly and who bloody cares?"

[Oregano]

"So, the Americans wanted their own country, so we sent a few blokes over to shoot at them, but they really wanted it so we let em have it because whatever, they're ugly and who bloody cares?"

Sounds about right.:smallwink:

Well actually it isn't, we're not that pompous and arrogant.

[Aotrs Commander]

Speak for yourself...



On an closely related note, you yanks (which is the British generic term for all Americans; yes we, know it peeves about half of you off, and no, we don't care) and other foreign types should have a look at the following terribly detailed guide. (http://www.brookview.karoo.net/BFA/index.htm) It'll really help you understand us. And you should totally follow their suggestions to the letter. It's completely accurate.

It's well worth a read for us Brits, just to know what we're telling our visitors.



Edit: fixed link, thank you unstattedCommoner for pointing that out!

[unstattedCommoner]

Speak for yourself...


On an closely related note, you yanks (which is the British generic term for all Americans; yes we, know it peeves about half of you off, and no, we don't care) and other foreign types should have a look at the following http://www.brookview.karoo.net/BFA/index.htm (terribly detailed guide.) It'll really help you understand us. And you should totally follow their suggestions to the letter. It's completely accurate.

It's well worth a read for us Brits, just to know what we're telling our visitors.

I believe this (http://www.brookview.karoo.net/BFA/index.htm) is the correct link.

[Avilan the Grey]

Every country teaches history depending on it's history...

We never read anything about the English civil war (I didn't even know it had happened until I was like 30 years old).

We read a little about the American revolution, and a LOT about the French (like 2 straight weeks plus school projects).

We spent an hour or so on the American civil war.

A lot of time spent on the Russian revolution, and WWI

A LOT of time on WWII

Quite some time spent on the civil rights movement in the US

[Wraithy]

On the topic of oldest government, America has the oldest constitution in the world.

That depends on whether you'd count uncodified constitutions. If you do then the Magna Carta was the first, and (correct me if I'm wrong) is still in use today.

I don't really know anything about the American revolution, I only learned about France's involvement in it when I was visiting a museum in Paris with an exhibit on the design and construction of the statue of liberty.

I'm doing History at A level now and let me tell you this: I didn't want to learn about the Tudors in year 4, and I still don't want to learn about them in year 13.
Still, I suppose its all worth it because I also get to learn about Russia from 1855 to 1956, which rather disturbingly inspired a friend of mine on the course to write a cringeworthy romance about a love triangle between Lenin, Stalin, and Trotsky :smalleek:

[skywalker]

This may be the thing about the US that shocks - nay, horrifies me - me the most. Cops, at a school? With guns?! My school hired a security guard for exactly one night of the year: Muck-up Day Eve.
A lot of the things you listed, apparently positively, about private schools (and Australia seems to have pretty much the same situation, except for the prep-school bit) are the things I dislike about them. I.e. the elitism and exclusivity, the inaccessibility to the non-rich, the obviously more funding than public schools, etc. Of course, much of this is simply intrinsic to their nature (though if what I heard about private schools in Australia being at least as well funded by the government as public is true, I am very peeved).
In Aus, it's a state-wide curriculum, with a push to make it nation-wide.

I wasn't making a value judgment one way or the other, just explaining. I know I didn't go to any great lengths to make it sound negative, but I didn't mean to be positive about it either. I'm not sure how much funding the school gets. I know they're always doing fundraisers, and obviously the pricey tuition helps. My school was somewhat accessible to the rich, which I detailed. If I had to guess, I'd say about 20 kids out of a 100 kid class got at least part of their tuition paid by the school. This varies from class to class, but I'd say it's about right. My current girlfriend is one of those students. They're actually some of the best people there.


Not to belittle your and your parent's decision, but this seems like a very naive approach to the world. Different groups get mixed together in the public school, so you go to private school to avoid it? What happens when this occurs in your workplace? You quit and try to get a different job? It seems to me that this conflict is something it is important to experience as you grow up, so you know how to deal with it. The same thing with hardship. You're not always going to have the shiny books and little crowding. It's part of life. It just seems wrong to me to try and hide from it.
Again, this is not to belittle your decision, I honestly want to know your responses to these points.
Also, skywalker, if you don't mind saying, what book do you use for US history? I am also in AP, and it'd be interesting if we use the same book.

On another note, my school, while the best by far in the area, has security guards, but no metal detectors. These guards, however, do not carry guns and are forbidden to touch the students, so they are pretty much pointless, except as an intimidation factor. Like a great many security features in the US, they were first implemented after 9/11.

We used "The Unfinished Nation," and my girlfriend used it this year in her AP class as well. Most security features in the US started showing up after Columbine, altho some schools had metal detectors and increased police presence even before that.

On the subject of my parents' decision, they played it up really big and made it sound awesome, but at the end of 4th grade, I didn't really want to go. I had plenty of friends, etc. But their lawyer(s) and other friends had sent their kids, and were highly encouraging. So I went. I enjoyed my time there, altho I'm certain I would've enjoyed public school as well. Some specific aspects you mentioned aren't necessarily elitism, uncrowded classrooms, excellent facilities, and lack of conflict are known to be conducive to learning. At school, you're supposed to learn. If I had gone to the public school, I no doubt would've been in a much more competitive environment that might have driven me to learn even more. On the other hand, my friends from elementary school turned out to be virtually like my private school peers, except that they drank even more and were even less tolerant of the less fortunate. Maybe a "familiarity breeds contempt" type of deal. I also might've considered going back, since I didn't fit in very well at all my first 4 years there (my parents are new money, and a lot of the school is old money, or new money people pretending very hard that they're old money). Unfortunately, I could never consider going back, because all of the friends I had in public school stopped associating with me.

My school actually went to great lengths to make us "socially conscious" or what not. A lot of effort was put into making us think that the "less fortunate" were just that, less fortunate, and not less.

As for the dealing with conflict, I still learned to deal with conflict. And while I will have to deal with conflict in my job, I highly doubt I'll need to worry about getting knifed by a gangbanger (black or white), wherever I go to work. This was the primary concern about me going to the public high school. My parents tend to use the "1% doctrine" when it comes to stabbings, shootings, etc.

[pendell]

When I was in high school, my AP (advanced placement, gives College Credit) American History teacher told us that she'd taught US history in Britain for a few years sometime in the past. According to her, the British version goes something like this:

"So, the Americans wanted their own country, so we sent a few blokes over to shoot at them, but they really wanted it so we let em have it because whatever, they're ugly and who bloody cares?"

In all fairness, until I went and educated myself, this is all I learned about the American Revolution (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VQA5NDNkUM&feature=related), and I'm an American.

I note that the only battle they actually mention was one we lost, so we seem to have something in common with our cousins overseas.

It wasn't until many years later I read about WWII and found out to my surprise the British had been our *allies*. That was in about 1979 or so. Mythically, the British are the USA's #1 Nemesis. Lookit the Star Wars movies -- Gee, that couldn't possibly be in part a mythical retelling of the Revolution, with small ragtag freedom fighters taking on the most powerful navy in history, with English accents yet.


It doesn't surprise me that folks in the UK don't like to remember the War of American Secession ( a friend of mine saw that name in the battle honors of a regiment in the UK). Funny how countries don't like remembering battles they lost or wars we were ashamed of. Yo! Americans! What can you tell me about how Panama got it's independence from Columbia? Or how the former Kingdom of Hawaii became our 50th state? Many mentions of the United Fruit Company? Rest assured, go to Central America and read their textbooks, you'll find a very different view of American history.

We shine a spotlight on the stuff we're proud of and we try to forget all the bad things we did to get that way. I guess that's why popular history is not easily distinguishable from myth.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Aotrs Commander]

It doesn't surprise me that folks in the UK don't like to remember the War of American Secession ( a friend of mine saw that name in the battle honors of a regiment in the UK). Funny how countries don't like remembering battles they lost or wars we were ashamed of.

Nah, it's not that. It's just we've been beaten with panache by so many other people, your war doesn't really stand out! We love remembering how we got totally pummelled with style.

You guys were like a B-list villain really, compared with, say the French or the Germans. Filler even...

Compared to the 'delightful' incompetance of the Crimea, or WWI or the Crusades or K Boats or that time in 1667 the Dutch sailed up the Themes and kicked the living crap outta us and nicked our best warship1. I mean, we didn't even get a pointlessly wasted sacrifice of any note out of you chaps!



1Okay, so we do keep quiet about that one. But c'mon, we, the foremost world's naval power at the time (and in reputation only since Nelson...) got totally and utterly stuffed on our own turf - at our own ruddy game, no less, by the Dutch. Talk about embarrasing...

[Kcalehc]

It doesn't surprise me that folks in the UK don't like to remember the War of American Secession ( a friend of mine saw that name in the battle honors of a regiment in the UK). Funny how countries don't like remembering battles they lost or wars we were ashamed of. Yo! Americans! What can you tell me about how Panama got it's independence from Columbia? Or how the former Kingdom of Hawaii became our 50th state? Many mentions of the United Fruit Company? Rest assured, go to Central America and read their textbooks, you'll find a very different view of American history.

We shine a spotlight on the stuff we're proud of and we try to forget all the bad things we did to get that way. I guess that's why popular history is not easily distinguishable from myth.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Well the UK does have quite a lot of history... Plus it's effects on Britain immediately afterwards were pretty small; and there was more important things going on at the time (like bashing the french - still a popular sport to this day! ;) ). Though its later effects on the Empire were significant, really at the time it was not such a big deal. Playing pass the lead balls with Napoleons army was more pressing, in 1812 too - I'd bet that most people in the UK don't even know we fought the US then at all (a no score draw officially that one too).

[Z-dan]

Compared to the 'delightful' incompetance of the Crimea, or WWI or the Crusades or K Boats or that time in 1667 the Dutch sailed up the Themes and kicked the living crap outta us and nicked our best warship1. I mean, we didn't even get a pointlessly wasted sacrifice of any note out of you chaps!



1Okay, so we do keep quiet about that one. But c'mon, we, the foremost world's naval power at the time (and in reputation only since Nelson...) got totally and utterly stuffed on our own turf - at our own ruddy game, no less, by the Dutch. Talk about embarrasing...


Heeeeeey I'm half-dutch :smallannoyed: In fact, quite coincidentally, I come from an island in the middle of the Thames- the little-known Canvey Island, which was settled by the aforementioned Dutch who managed to make it habitable when it was just marshland- though now it's synonymous with chavs... And I then moved to Norfolk which I'm told also had a large population of Dutch, though that was more a cultural invasion
And I agree about how we love bragging about how many times we've been invaded... I mean the whole of our language is based on who invaded us (short version is that half of it comes from the Romans and the other half from the Anglo-Saxons). Though you have to wonder what the attraction is in this little rainy island... Whenever we start to mind our own business someone comes along and invades us

[Hzurr]

It wasn't until many years later I read about WWII and found out to my surprise the British had been our *allies*. That was in about 1979 or so. Mythically, the British are the USA's #1 Nemesis. Lookit the Star Wars movies -- Gee, that couldn't possibly be in part a mythical retelling of the Revolution, with small ragtag freedom fighters taking on the most powerful navy in history, with English accents yet.



Well, in all fairness, the Rebels did bring a flag. :smalltongue:

(Don't worry if you don't get it)

To a small degree, I agree with Brian P.'s last post. Americans know far more about Vietnam (the war we "lost") than they do about the Spanish-American War, Mexican-American War, or even the first Gulf War.

Those wars where we ran in, won, then left tend to be a much more minor note in the history books (This is also how many view WWI. I mean, we were in the war for less than 2 years, then left and ignored the rest of the world for almost 20 years. It's actually suprising how much Americans ignore WWI and don't care about it)

In American history, the big wars we tend to emphasize are the Revolution (because it's the whole "our country started" thing), the Civil War (the "hey, don't be a racist idiot" thing), World War 2 (because we got to be awesome, and the Nazi's are such great villains that we look like the coolest heros ever for winning), and Vietnam (the "oops, this was a bad idea" war)

All the other ones we tend to gloss over.

[Aotrs Commander]

So what you're saying is ... you've been beaten so badly by so many different countries that it all sort of blends together? Sort of like a $5 whore who can't remember all her johns because she's had so many? We're like the 8-year-old gangbanger who puts the boot in after the big kids have thoroughly beaten the snot out of someone?

That's it exactly.

The proud English tradition that we've done something nasty to pretty much every single country in the world at one time or another has lead to almost every country in the world kicking us in the shins at one time or another...

After a while, all those knocks to the head make you go all peculiar. And I think it's very fair to say even we think we're a bit strange at the best of times...



Mind you, about half of those defeats were self-inflicted (especially in the colonial era, when Britain's generals and admirals tended to treat war as a bit of a lark, like hunting or something or were extremely old or both). A typical British battle then consisted of it being lead by some pompous upper class twollock, who probably should have retired years ago, with a double-barrelled name making arbitary decisions in his booze-soaked mind, based on foggy recollections of what was considered sporting at Eton (etc) rather than actual battlefield logic, and the price being paid, in victory or defeat, by the blood and effort by the common British soldier or sailor.

The only consolation is that often, nobody else was any better. (It has been said the one who wins the battle is the one that screws up least...)




Heeeeeey I'm half-dutch :smallannoyed:

So you get to laugh and point and say "my ancestors kicked sand in your ancestor's faces!" Good for you!

(I was so tempted just to say, "I'm so sorry", but thought that might, within the medium of text where my tone cannot be so easily read, be construed as me being serious. But I thought about it...)

Never let it be said the British are always sore losers, though. Operation Menace springs to mind; later in the war when the chap who lead that attack met the French submarine commander who, during the defense of Dakar, torpedoed the Resolution, he said, "good shot" and slapped a medal on him...


Though you have to wonder what the attraction is in this little rainy island... Whenever we start to mind our own business someone comes along and invades us

They're just jealous because we're so awesome.

[pendell]

Well, in all fairness, the Rebels did bring a flag. :smalltongue:

(Don't worry if you don't get it)

To a small degree, I agree with Brian P.'s last post. Americans know far more about Vietnam (the war we "lost") than they do about the Spanish-American War, Mexican-American War, or even the first Gulf War.

Those wars where we ran in, won, then left tend to be a much more minor note in the history books (This is also how many view WWI. I mean, we were in the war for less than 2 years, then left and ignored the rest of the world for almost 20 years. It's actually suprising how much Americans ignore WWI and don't care about it)

In American history, the big wars we tend to emphasize are the Revolution (because it's the whole "our country started" thing), the Civil War (the "hey, don't be a racist idiot" thing), World War 2 (because we got to be awesome, and the Nazi's are such great villains that we look like the coolest heros ever for winning), and Vietnam (the "oops, this was a bad idea" war)

All the other ones we tend to gloss over.

Minor note: I deleted the post you and Aotrs Commander reference about 2 minutes after I posted it. I trusted Aotrs Commander's sense of humor, but I was afraid it might start a flamewar with the humor-impaired.

Not fast enough, evidently.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[LordOfXoriat]

-edit_deleted-

[Aotrs Commander]

Minor note: I deleted the post you and Aotrs Commander reference about 2 minutes after I posted it. I trusted Aotrs Commander's sense of humor, but I was afraid it might start a flamewar with the humor-impaired.

Not fast enough, evidently.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

One can only hope that my responce shows the comment should be taken the way it was intended. I, personally, was delighted someone responded in the manner in which I'd intended. The exchance of invective and witty reparte, is - at it's best - a high art, after all...

(Frankly, if everyone in the world was more prepared to have the mickey taken out of them with good humour istead of getting all offended, it would be a far better - or at least funnier (which is largely the same thing) - place... Self-deprecation is least one thing that the British are really good at. Some cruel souls (probably Foreigners...) might say this is because we've got a great deal to be self-deprecating about...)

[pendell]

Was this a joke? I hope so.


'Fraid it wasn't.

What I learned in school (Southern California) was that wars happened , but who fought
them and why was not covered at all. The only time I was exposed to war was in popular culture -- and that was always the American Revolution. I'd turn on my TV and I'd see schoolhouse rock with it's three different episodes on fighting the British, then Looney Tunes would come on and I'd see "Hessian Sam" (Yosemite Sam) getting his clock cleaned
by Bugs Bunny. Etc. etc.

Might have had something to do with the bicentennial (1976) having just happened.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Z-dan]

So you get to laugh and point and say "my ancestors kicked sand in your ancestor's faces!" Good for you!


actually, I did say I was half-dutch... so I think that means I get to say "my ancestors kicked sand in my other ancestor's face" :smalleek: you know that explains quite a lot...

And the one thing I've learned from being on forums: Foreigners (particularly Americans, no offence meant) need to lighten up... If you go to an all-british forum I'm almost certain there would be no cases of anyone saying 'no offence meant' cos that's just the way we are. As I've said before elsewhere, we may poke fun and make ironic observations of other cultures, but we poke fun at ourselves 10 times more. Actually no, we poke fun at Americans 10 times more- we just poke fun at ourselves a lot...

^case in point :smallbiggrin:

[An Enemy Spy]

'Fraid it wasn't.

What I learned in school (Southern California) was that wars happened , but who fought
them and why was not covered at all. The only time I was exposed to war was in popular culture -- and that was always the American Revolution. I'd turn on my TV and I'd see schoolhouse rock with it's three different episodes on fighting the British, then Looney Tunes would come on and I'd see "Hessian Sam" (Yosemite Sam) getting his clock cleaned
by Bugs Bunny. Etc. etc.

Might have had something to do with the bicentennial (1976) having just happened.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Wow. Your school sucks!

[Storm Bringer]

well, my formal schooling was....patchy in it's covering of history, to say the least.

we learnt about the roman invasion of 55bc, then kinda skip over a thousand years of intresting and bloody history and move on to 1066 (the only memorable dates in english history:smallwink:), skipped merrily over the crusades and all that nasty buisness with the arabs (and the Hundred Years War) to henry VIII and the Tudor's. It then moved to the English Civil War and form their, straight over the Neapoleonic Wars and the victorian period (with that unfashionable imperial business and the subugation of 40% of the world) and onto World Wars 1 and 2. Oh, and vietnam, for no appreant reason and in a laughbly shallow depth ("the ameircans went here and got thier arses handed to them").

as a history buff, I filled in most of the blanks myself. the sad thing is just how much intresting stuff they skip over. the hundred years war, which doesn't even get a mention (not even a 'we trashed them at Agincourt!', leaving out the fact we were A retreating, B then went on to lose all our french holdings and C got our arsed handed to us by a 18 year old girl ). The crusades are mentioned in passing ("oh, richard the loinheart went to Palistine to fight for Jerusalem, moving on...").

Most importantly, they don't mention the British Raj at all. not a single word, in any of the textbooks or anything. some of the most important events in history (the conquest of india, the Muntiny, indian army actions in ww1 and 2, Gandi and the independance movement, ect) for the 2 million or so indian subcontinent UK residents, and they gloss right over it.

[keldorn]

we learnt about the roman invasion of 55bc, then kinda skip over a thousand years of intresting and bloody history and move on to 1066 (the only memorable dates in english history:smallwink:).

But the key English history textbook by Sellar and Yeatman does mention a third year in the footnote covering Caesar's second invasion of Britain. (The year following 55BC which was 54BC not 56BC "due to the peculiar Roman method of counting".

[LordOfXoriat]

-edit_deleted-

[Doran_Liadon]

The answer is seven!

[An Enemy Spy]

Lies! the answer is 8!

[Doran_Liadon]

You forgot to carry your one!

[skywalker]

It doesn't surprise me that folks in the UK don't like to remember the War of American Secession ( a friend of mine saw that name in the battle honors of a regiment in the UK). Funny how countries don't like remembering battles they lost or wars we were ashamed of. Yo! Americans! What can you tell me about how Panama got it's independence from Columbia? Or how the former Kingdom of Hawaii became our 50th state? Many mentions of the United Fruit Company? Rest assured, go to Central America and read their textbooks, you'll find a very different view of American history.

We shine a spotlight on the stuff we're proud of and we try to forget all the bad things we did to get that way. I guess that's why popular history is not easily distinguishable from myth.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Actually, my textbook and course focused quite a bit on the Mexican- and Spanish-American Wars, how screwed up both of them were, and how the UFC was involved in the Hawaii business.

So no worries for you there, LordofXoriat.


Nah, it's not that. It's just we've been beaten with panache by so many other people, your war doesn't really stand out! We love remembering how we got totally pummelled with style.

You guys were like a B-list villain really, compared with, say the French or the Germans. Filler even...

Compared to the 'delightful' incompetance of the Crimea, or WWI or the Crusades or K Boats or that time in 1667 the Dutch sailed up the Themes and kicked the living crap outta us and nicked our best warship1. I mean, we didn't even get a pointlessly wasted sacrifice of any note out of you chaps!



1Okay, so we do keep quiet about that one. But c'mon, we, the foremost world's naval power at the time (and in reputation only since Nelson...) got totally and utterly stuffed on our own turf - at our own ruddy game, no less, by the Dutch. Talk about embarrasing...

Dude, in 1667, I think the Dutch navy was pretty kick ass. At least, that's what my spotty Wikipedia knowledge and understanding of shipping back then indicates. To be honest, we didn't study the Anglo-Dutch wars in my history class. For shame on us. Anyway, I think that, in 1667, getting your ass handed to you by the Dutch isn't nearly as bad as it sounds today.

Also, B-list?! We had a classic heel-face turn only rivaled by your heel-face turn in our story. I mean, the French wound up as allies, but only just. Not good buddies like the US and Britain. Not language buddies!

I personally think that anybody who would fight you over the Midwest and southern Canada has got to be a pretty good adversary, regardless of their characterize-ability.

[Serpentine]

I mean the whole of our language is based on who invaded us (short version is that half of it comes from the Romans and the other half from the Anglo-Saxons).Actually, a very large portion of basic modern English comes from the Viking invaders. My lecturer told us a saying, something like "You couldn't be born, live or die in England without the Vikings". Words like "egg" have Norse origins.
Your point remains, however :smallwink:

[LordOfXoriat]

-edit_deleted-

[Z-dan]

Actually, a very large portion of basic modern English comes from the Viking invaders. My lecturer told us a saying, something like "You couldn't be born, live or die in England without the Vikings". Words like "egg" have Norse origins.
Your point remains, however :smallwink:

That's why I said 'mostly' latin or anglo-saxon :smallwink: I did A-level English Language and Literature, and half the course was about origins of words and such... Which I can summarise thusly: eloquent, non-emotional, technical vocabulary such as this is Latin in origin; harsh, short, strong words are Anglo-Saxon (or Viking/Germanic if you prefer). I actually find etymology fascinating... and am at the point where I can identify the origins of many words just by looking at them- something that will come in handy when I start to learn Greek :smallbiggrin: