6551
Post by: thedarksaint
I've been asked to teach a US history course for out 9th grade students (14 years old). I'd like to do something very different and teach the American Revolution out of a British History book desgined for that age group. I'd like them to experiance a famalliar part of history from a different persepctive.
However, in searching for any of these books, I have problems finding just regular text books. I can find other books written spesificly on the subject, but I'd like a standard text book. Anyone have any suggestions?
21720
Post by: LordofHats
I know little of text books but what you could do is just use normal US based text books supplemented with extra readings that carry a more British perspective. 9th Grade is old enough to start delving into some light scholarly material and finding articles about the causes, events, and outcome of the Revolution written from the British perspective shouldn't be too hard, not since Jstor was invented. The Cambridge Historical Journal and the The Historical Journal (since 1958) Could be a place to start looking if you choose to go this route.
Its just a suggestion and it may be time consuming to find good articles (though it's cheaper hopefully than full texts).
44431
Post by: killykavekommando
Ima just warn you that the Brits don't mention the American Revolution very much in their history, as they viewed the colonies as an almost corporate loss, not so much political. That's at least from what I've gathered from research.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
I was wondering about that. Given the scale of British History, the American Revolution is more of a cliff note than something entire text books are written about or that even gets as much notice as we'd give it. Especially given the origins of the Revolution in numerous larger historical events (Seven Years War).
44431
Post by: killykavekommando
Exactly. They might however have history magazine articles about them, much like we still have articles of the war of 1812
6551
Post by: thedarksaint
Which is kind of what I'm looking for. We'll be going through the Revolution with regular text books, but I'd like to use a UK text book to show the kids what the Brits think of the war.
48860
Post by: Joey
thedarksaint wrote:Which is kind of what I'm looking for. We'll be going through the Revolution with regular text books, but I'd like to use a UK text book to show the kids what the Brits think of the war.
I don't think it's part of the curriculum. It's more like "common knowledge" of the American Revolution, our history tends to be Henry VIII, the tudors, reformation, etc. The loss of the 13 colonies wasn't such a big deal historically speaking, considering the British Empire continued to grow for centuries after...
But yeah I doubt you'll find a textbook with a mention of the American revolution (or the third English civil war  ).
7653
Post by: Corpsesarefun
Yeah you don't really cover any history related to america until you get to A-level (17-18 year olds) and you can take american history.
52525
Post by: Sonophos
We were pretty much taught:
The people in what was to become the US didn't like paying taxes to Britain so they threw some tea into Boston Harbour (A most heinous crime) and rebelled against the empire.
48860
Post by: Joey
Sonophos wrote:We were pretty much taught:
The people in what was to become the US didn't like paying taxes to Britain so they threw some tea into Boston Harbour (A most heinous crime) and rebelled against the empire.
You were taught that in school? The only reason I and most of my generation knew about the American Revolution was thanks to all the yankee kids tv shows we had to watch. Still, none of them were nearly so bad as The Patriot...
52525
Post by: Sonophos
It was in early secondry school. I honestly can't remeber that much of the lessons.
BTW Saint do not forget to stress that in the mind of the British, throwing away tea is a crime against God and nature.
5394
Post by: reds8n
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/american_revolution_01.shtml
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4727956
Might be of some interest.
Apart from that I don't really think that the subject is covered much/at all in the UK schools history syllabus. I certainly neber had any classes on it up to GCSE level, and my A Levels covered a different time period and topic.
53002
Post by: Tibbsy
Sonophos wrote:We were pretty much taught:
The people in what was to become the US didn't like paying taxes to Britain so they threw some tea into Boston Harbour (A most heinous crime) and rebelled against the empire.
We weren't bothered by the not paying taxes and rebellion part. But such an unthinking waste of good tea could not go un-punished 
27391
Post by: purplefood
reds8n wrote:http://www.bbc.co. uk/history/british/empire_seapower/american_revolution_01.shtml
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4727956
Might be of some interest.
Apart from that I don't really think that the subject is covered much/at all in the UK schools history syllabus. I certainly neber had any classes on it up to GCSE level, and my A Levels covered a different time period and topic.
AFAIK the subject isn't covered until you hit A level/degree and i'm fairly sure it isn't covered in A level but it depends where you go...
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
LordofHats wrote:I was wondering about that. Given the scale of British History, the American Revolution is more of a cliff note than something entire text books are written about or that even gets as much notice as we'd give it. Especially given the origins of the Revolution in numerous larger historical events (Seven Years War).
My earlier reply seems to have got lost in the web.
Basically, for Americans the AWI is the crucial founding event of your nation, however seen from a British perspective it is only one of many overseas adventures throughout history.
29460
Post by: Philld77
Kilkrazy wrote:[My earlier reply seems to have got lost in the web.
Basically, for Americans the AWI is the crucial founding event of your nation, however seen from a British perspective it is only one of many overseas adventures throughout history.
Well I would have said more of a misadventure there Kilkrazy, but back on topic when I was taking GCSE History, the closest we got to it was the Agricultural Revolution before moving on to the Industrial Revolution, this was in 1993, but I can't see the curriculum changing that much, prior to my GCSEs it mainly dealt with early British/European up to the Great war and a few pieces of modern history (up to about the mid 50s).
37585
Post by: Wyrmalla
The current curriculum for Scottish schools handles the 1st and 2nd world wars, the industrialisation during the 19th centuary, and the Women's Suffrage movement as of last year (the only change this year is the focus of the history turning more towards Scottish rather than British history). All that there currently is on America is a few footnotes amongst the war stuff, though their used to be a section on the history of Native Americans (which probably included the civil war near the end), but that was about a decade ago. We're more focussed on Europe when it comes to the history of countries outwith our own.
The Canadians might have a lesson on the subject which would offer a British perspective on the conflict. However I think the subject's a little advanced for a 2nd year student (which I assume is the same your 9th grade); here their learning about ancient history, war's a 5th year thing. ^^
11029
Post by: Ketara
Kilkrazy wrote:LordofHats wrote:I was wondering about that. Given the scale of British History, the American Revolution is more of a cliff note than something entire text books are written about or that even gets as much notice as we'd give it. Especially given the origins of the Revolution in numerous larger historical events (Seven Years War).
My earlier reply seems to have got lost in the web.
Basically, for Americans the AWI is the crucial founding event of your nation, however seen from a British perspective it is only one of many overseas adventures throughout history.
This in a nutshell. I did the Tudors, the Romans, the slave trade, the two world wars and the Cold War at school, and I went through it not so long ago.
Heck, I'm lining up to be a professional British historian at the moment, and I've managed to avoid doing American specific history. It just really doesn't impact over here. We conquered and lost most of the world. Since the Empire is barely taught (not considered PC except to apologise for slavery), the Americas gets wrapped up in the period of British history they try and pretend never happened.
48860
Post by: Joey
Ketara wrote:not considered PC except to apologise for slavery
I smell bs.
I did History GCSE (failed it, as I failed all my GCSEs) ~6 years ago and I distinctly remember maps of the Empire.
Fact is recent history, the industrial revolution and world wars, are much more important than imperial history.
As someone "lining up to be a professional historian" you should know that suffrage, the industrial revolution and the creation of the welfare state is far more important than a list of dates chronicling batles in some far-flung corner of the globe.
But hey, you're a professional historian and I'm just an unemployed shelf stacker, what would I know.
27391
Post by: purplefood
Joey wrote:Ketara wrote:not considered PC except to apologise for slavery
I smell bs.
I did History GCSE (failed it, as I failed all my GCSEs) ~6 years ago and I distinctly remember maps of the Empire.
Fact is recent history, the industrial revolution and world wars, are much more important than imperial history.
As someone "lining up to be a professional historian" you should know that suffrage, the industrial revolution and the creation of the welfare state is far more important than a list of dates chronicling batles in some far-flung corner of the globe.
But hey, you're a professional historian and I'm just an unemployed shelf stacker, what would I know.
I did history 3 years ago...
We covered the first and second world war, vietnam and the cold war...
I distinctly remember this since i wrote my essay on vietnam...
48860
Post by: Joey
purplefood wrote:Joey wrote:Ketara wrote:not considered PC except to apologise for slavery
I smell bs.
I did History GCSE (failed it, as I failed all my GCSEs) ~6 years ago and I distinctly remember maps of the Empire.
Fact is recent history, the industrial revolution and world wars, are much more important than imperial history.
As someone "lining up to be a professional historian" you should know that suffrage, the industrial revolution and the creation of the welfare state is far more important than a list of dates chronicling batles in some far-flung corner of the globe.
But hey, you're a professional historian and I'm just an unemployed shelf stacker, what would I know.
I did history 3 years ago...
We covered the first and second world war, vietnam and the cold war...
I distinctly remember this since i wrote my essay on vietnam...
Right, do you remember when you were told how evil white people are and why you should all feel bad? Or that just an invention of the right-wing press?
27391
Post by: purplefood
Joey wrote:purplefood wrote:Joey wrote:Ketara wrote:not considered PC except to apologise for slavery
I smell bs.
I did History GCSE (failed it, as I failed all my GCSEs) ~6 years ago and I distinctly remember maps of the Empire.
Fact is recent history, the industrial revolution and world wars, are much more important than imperial history.
As someone "lining up to be a professional historian" you should know that suffrage, the industrial revolution and the creation of the welfare state is far more important than a list of dates chronicling batles in some far-flung corner of the globe.
But hey, you're a professional historian and I'm just an unemployed shelf stacker, what would I know.
I did history 3 years ago...
We covered the first and second world war, vietnam and the cold war...
I distinctly remember this since i wrote my essay on vietnam...
Right, do you remember when you were told how evil white people are and why you should all feel bad? Or that just an invention of the right-wing press?
If we were told that i wasn't paying attention...
We just weren't taught the Empire...
We were taught the slave trade but no the Empire. I'm not sure whether it was because it was deemed less important or because of percieved PC-ness but we weren't taught it...
11029
Post by: Ketara
Joey wrote:Ketara wrote:not considered PC except to apologise for slavery
I smell bs.
I did History GCSE (failed it, as I failed all my GCSEs) ~6 years ago and I distinctly remember maps of the Empire.
Fact is recent history, the industrial revolution and world wars, are much more important than imperial history.
As someone "lining up to be a professional historian" you should know that suffrage, the industrial revolution and the creation of the welfare state is far more important than a list of dates chronicling batles in some far-flung corner of the globe.
But hey, you're a professional historian and I'm just an unemployed shelf stacker, what would I know.
That's interesting as I did it.....six years ago as well!
You may have done a different curriculum to me, depending on the examining board (for example, you get OCR, Edexcel, etc). There's no need to start throwin claims like ' bs' about however, that's just plain offensive, and hardly conducive to good discussion.
The liberal rejection of Empire is a well known and documented phenomena however. Imperial history is regarded as un-politically correct, and something to gloss over in our nations past. Teaching it would mean including the pros as well as the cons, and as such, would be regarded as nationalistic, something they've been hard at work stripping out of the mindset of the populace.
48860
Post by: Joey
Ketara wrote:Joey wrote:Ketara wrote:not considered PC except to apologise for slavery
I smell bs.
I did History GCSE (failed it, as I failed all my GCSEs) ~6 years ago and I distinctly remember maps of the Empire.
Fact is recent history, the industrial revolution and world wars, are much more important than imperial history.
As someone "lining up to be a professional historian" you should know that suffrage, the industrial revolution and the creation of the welfare state is far more important than a list of dates chronicling batles in some far-flung corner of the globe.
But hey, you're a professional historian and I'm just an unemployed shelf stacker, what would I know.
That's interesting as I did it.....six years ago as well!
You may have done a different curriculum to me, depending on the examining board (for example, you OCR, Edexcel, etc). There's no need to start throwin claims like ' bs' about however, that's just plain offensive, and hardly conducive to good discussion.
The liberal rejection of Empire is a well known and documented phenomena however. Imperial history is regarded as un-politically correct, and something to gloss over in our nations past. Teaching it would mean including the pros as well as the cons, and as such, would be regarded as nationalistic, something they've been hard at work stripping out of the mindset of the populace.
So you'd rather everyone knew about the empire and no one knew about the war? Or you don't think women's suffrage is important? (actually I don't, but there's things more important than empire).
What proof do you have, oh follower of the empirical light, that this is part of a concerted effort to strip nationalism from society?
11029
Post by: Ketara
Joey wrote:[So you'd rather everyone knew about the empire and no one knew about the war? Or you don't think women's suffrage is important? (actually I don't, but there's things more important than empire).
What proof do you have, oh follower of the empirical light, that this is part of a concerted effort to strip nationalism from society?
I really don't get where this animosity is coming from. I never stated any piece of history was more valid than any other. I just pointed out the deliberate exclusion of Empire from the history texts.
As to the importance of World Wars, did you know WW1 is barely taught in Germany? WW2 psychologically made an impact there, but WW1 is culturally infinitely more important to us than them, they just regard it as they do say, the Franco Prussian war, or suchlike, a trifling part of their past.
6646
Post by: Morathi's Darkest Sin
Aye, I never went through to A-level History, but we pretty much skipped WW1 and WW2 at GSCE level, and did pratically nothing on the US, a bit about the american Civil war I seem to remember.
History was more focused on ancient through to Victorian at GCSE level, then dodged past/very quickly through the good stuff (well to my young mind) at the end. Thats was over twenty years ago mind.
27391
Post by: purplefood
A level history is split up into 3 eras...
Modern- Early 20th century to about 1950 or so...
Medieval- Henry the 7th kind of era, so maybe 1450 to about 1600's or so...
Ancient-Damn well ages ago... Not sure on dates but pre-10th century i think.
This is how it's done at my college at any rate...
7653
Post by: Corpsesarefun
My college also has classical history and american history.
27391
Post by: purplefood
There you go then...
Some colleges have more options/less options than others...
Apparently there are some that don't do psychology which seems odd.
11029
Post by: Ketara
corpsesarefun wrote:My college also has classical history and american history.
This is true. However, I presumed we were talking about GCSE level.
27391
Post by: purplefood
Ah...
Good point...
Yeah pretty much no secondary school in the country will be teaching that at GCSE...
33891
Post by: Grakmar
Ketara wrote:As to the importance of World Wars, did you know WW1 is barely taught in Germany? WW2 psychologically made an impact there, but WW1 is culturally infinitely more important to us than them, they just regard it as they do say, the Franco Prussian war, or suchlike, a trifling part of their past.
That's okay. WW1 is barely even mentioned in American schools.
We typically just go:
Nothing at all happens in the world up until Columbus discovers America (1492)! Nothing happens again until The Mayflower (1620). Then, a whole bunch of nothing happens until the American Revolution (1776). Then, real history begins in detail. We learn all sorts of interesting stuff detailing all sorts of history. Then, we get to the American Civil War (1861-1865). After the American Civil War, nothing happens until the roaring 20s, with mobsters and jazz and speakeasies. Then, the Great Depression happens, and then America saves everyone by single-handedly winning WW2 (why is it called 2 when it's the only one?). Then, nothing happens until Martin Luther King comes along in the late 60s. He... frees the slaves? Yeah, that's it. And then, history ends and we're at modern day! 
48860
Post by: Joey
purplefood wrote:There you go then...
Some colleges have more options/less options than others...
Apparently there are some that don't do psychology which seems odd.
Psychology is "frowned upon" in certain educational establishments.
27391
Post by: purplefood
Joey wrote:purplefood wrote:There you go then...
Some colleges have more options/less options than others...
Apparently there are some that don't do psychology which seems odd.
Psychology is "frowned upon" in certain educational establishments.
Why?
37585
Post by: Wyrmalla
Because most psychology/ general social studies students are baked out of their faces most of the time? 0.o
48860
Post by: Joey
purplefood wrote:Joey wrote:purplefood wrote:There you go then...
Some colleges have more options/less options than others...
Apparently there are some that don't do psychology which seems odd.
Psychology is "frowned upon" in certain educational establishments.
Why?
Because it's almost exclusively "studied" by stupid people?
I challenge you to meet an intelligent pyscology student.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
I studied various types of psychology in my management degree.
Are you saying I am fairly stupid?
37585
Post by: Wyrmalla
Said to me today the man who could barely string a sentence together, " I want to leave this NC Technical Support class and take Psychology. It'll let me be a child pschologist, which'll pretty much cover me for life.". He immediately goes on to talk about his affinity for knicking stuff and how he knows absolutely everything about DC comics. I'm sure there's the odd person who's actually got an attention span that's better than newt sitting it, but everyone else just takes another subject and then moves into a career in psychology. =P
7653
Post by: Corpsesarefun
Joey wrote:purplefood wrote:Joey wrote:purplefood wrote:There you go then...
Some colleges have more options/less options than others...
Apparently there are some that don't do psychology which seems odd.
Psychology is "frowned upon" in certain educational establishments.
Why?
Because it's almost exclusively "studied" by stupid people?
I challenge you to meet an intelligent pyscology student.
I know several intelligent psychology A-level students, I could never take it.
48860
Post by: Joey
Kilkrazy wrote:I studied various types of psychology in my management degree.
Are you saying I am fairly stupid?
Of course not. I'm sure there are some intelligent pyscology students, just like there are intelligent media studies students. But on average there's a definite "type".
11029
Post by: Ketara
Joey wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:I studied various types of psychology in my management degree.
Are you saying I am fairly stupid?
Of course not. I'm sure there are some intelligent pyscology students, just like there are intelligent media studies students. But on average there's a definite "type".
At A level, perhaps. But they also infest Law classes. This doesn't mean Law students are stupid.
I think once you hit undergrad level, a good 75% of those types are weeded out, and the remaining ones never make it into a career.
27391
Post by: purplefood
Joey wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:I studied various types of psychology in my management degree.
Are you saying I am fairly stupid?
Of course not. I'm sure there are some intelligent pyscology students, just like there are intelligent media studies students. But on average there's a definite "type".
I wouldn't say there is...
Some people are better at maths and similar subjects, other people are better at things like English or History.
And some people are good at things like Psychology.
I wouldn't say any of them are stupid...
48860
Post by: Joey
purplefood wrote:Joey wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:I studied various types of psychology in my management degree.
Are you saying I am fairly stupid?
Of course not. I'm sure there are some intelligent pyscology students, just like there are intelligent media studies students. But on average there's a definite "type".
I wouldn't say there is...
Some people are better at maths and similar subjects, other people are better at things like English or History.
And some people are good at things like Psychology.
I wouldn't say any of them are stupid...
Ah to be young. Haven't you learnt yet? Everyone's stupid, there's just differences in ability to bs your way through life.
27391
Post by: purplefood
Joey wrote:purplefood wrote:Joey wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:I studied various types of psychology in my management degree.
Are you saying I am fairly stupid?
Of course not. I'm sure there are some intelligent pyscology students, just like there are intelligent media studies students. But on average there's a definite "type".
I wouldn't say there is...
Some people are better at maths and similar subjects, other people are better at things like English or History.
And some people are good at things like Psychology.
I wouldn't say any of them are stupid...
Ah to be young. Haven't you learnt yet? Everyone's stupid, there's just differences in ability to bs your way through life.
Clearly not...
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Ah to be young. Haven't you learnt yet? Everyone's stupid, there's just differences in ability to bs your way through life.
I agree. Well, I'd change 'everyone' to 'almost everyone' but yeah.
46915
Post by: Private_Joker
Wow, I was taught the Russian Revolution, Chinese revolution, East Timor revolution and even Vietnamese revolution against the French. Never even heard a mention of the American revolution at school.
17152
Post by: Andrew1975
Grakmar wrote:Ketara wrote:As to the importance of World Wars, did you know WW1 is barely taught in Germany? WW2 psychologically made an impact there, but WW1 is culturally infinitely more important to us than them, they just regard it as they do say, the Franco Prussian war, or suchlike, a trifling part of their past.
That's okay. WW1 is barely even mentioned in American schools.
We typically just go:
Nothing at all happens in the world up until Columbus discovers America (1492)! Nothing happens again until The Mayflower (1620). Then, a whole bunch of nothing happens until the American Revolution (1776). Then, real history begins in detail. We learn all sorts of interesting stuff detailing all sorts of history. Then, we get to the American Civil War (1861-1865). After the American Civil War, nothing happens until the roaring 20s, with mobsters and jazz and speakeasies. Then, the Great Depression happens, and then America saves everyone by single-handedly winning WW2 (why is it called 2 when it's the only one?). Then, nothing happens until Martin Luther King comes along in the late 60s. He... frees the slaves? Yeah, that's it. And then, history ends and we're at modern day!
Really, Man when I was in School we studied world history. We learned about Rome, Greece, the norman invasion, medieval Europe, the Renaissance, the English civil war, the importance of the magna carta, napoleon, and this was all by like 5th grade. We didn't do strictly American history till 6th grade and 7th grade was just Ohio history. Then of course I hit high school and we started all over again, just more in depth.
We never really covered anything in any real depth until College, but at least I knew about it and could tell you who Oliver Cromwell was by 5th Grade. You guys should check out my old US history book, WW2 is hilarious propaganda, I mean you wouldn't even know the Russians existed except to accept trucks from lend lease.
15594
Post by: Albatross
Joey wrote:Ketara wrote:not considered PC except to apologise for slavery
I smell bs.
I did History GCSE (failed it, as I failed all my GCSEs) ~6 years ago and I distinctly remember maps of the Empire.
Fact is recent history, the industrial revolution and world wars, are much more important than imperial history.
As someone "lining up to be a professional historian" you should know that suffrage, the industrial revolution and the creation of the welfare state is far more important than a list of dates chronicling batles in some far-flung corner of the globe.
But hey, you're a professional historian and I'm just an unemployed shelf stacker, what would I know.
No, the British Empire was an incredibly important period of history which shaped the world we live in to a massive degree for various reasons, included, but not limited to:
The foundation of the USA, Canada, Australia/NZ, South Africa, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Iraq, Iran, Saudia Arabia, Oman, Yemen, UAE, Egypt (as a modern nation), Israel/Palestine, China, Myanmar/Burma, Jamaica, Barbados, Bermuda, not to mention many African nations - how do we explain the existence of all of these modern nations without explaing the role of the British Empire in shaping them?
The industrial revolution was a product of Empire, also.
48860
Post by: Joey
Albatross wrote:Joey wrote:Ketara wrote:not considered PC except to apologise for slavery
I smell bs.
I did History GCSE (failed it, as I failed all my GCSEs) ~6 years ago and I distinctly remember maps of the Empire.
Fact is recent history, the industrial revolution and world wars, are much more important than imperial history.
As someone "lining up to be a professional historian" you should know that suffrage, the industrial revolution and the creation of the welfare state is far more important than a list of dates chronicling batles in some far-flung corner of the globe.
But hey, you're a professional historian and I'm just an unemployed shelf stacker, what would I know.
No, the British Empire was an incredibly important period of history which shaped the world we live in to a massive degree for various reasons, included, but not limited to:
The foundation of the USA, Canada, Australia/NZ, South Africa, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Iraq, Iran, Saudia Arabia, Oman, Yemen, UAE, Egypt (as a modern nation), Israel/Palestine, China, Myanmar/Burma, Jamaica, Barbados, Bermuda, not to mention many African nations - how do we explain the existence of all of these modern nations without explaing the role of the British Empire in shaping them?
Not to sound like a dick but none of those nations are Britain. The Empire impacted the creation of dozens of states, of course it did, and people are still living with its concequences today. Doesn't mean it's important for British people.
Albatross wrote:
The industrial revolution was a product of Empire, also.
Not really. The industrial revolution happened in England first because France and Germany were battered and exhausted by war. Once the Germans (with their negligable colonies) caught on, they far outpaced us in industrial production.
The Empire may have helped by giving British businesses a place to dump cheap goods but by no means was it a nessesary precursor to industrialisation.
15594
Post by: Albatross
Joey wrote:Albatross wrote:Joey wrote:Ketara wrote:not considered PC except to apologise for slavery
I smell bs.
I did History GCSE (failed it, as I failed all my GCSEs) ~6 years ago and I distinctly remember maps of the Empire.
Fact is recent history, the industrial revolution and world wars, are much more important than imperial history.
As someone "lining up to be a professional historian" you should know that suffrage, the industrial revolution and the creation of the welfare state is far more important than a list of dates chronicling batles in some far-flung corner of the globe.
But hey, you're a professional historian and I'm just an unemployed shelf stacker, what would I know.
No, the British Empire was an incredibly important period of history which shaped the world we live in to a massive degree for various reasons, included, but not limited to:
The foundation of the USA, Canada, Australia/NZ, South Africa, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Iraq, Iran, Saudia Arabia, Oman, Yemen, UAE, Egypt (as a modern nation), Israel/Palestine, China, Myanmar/Burma, Jamaica, Barbados, Bermuda, not to mention many African nations - how do we explain the existence of all of these modern nations without explaing the role of the British Empire in shaping them?
Not to sound like a dick but none of those nations are Britain. The Empire impacted the creation of dozens of states, of course it did, and people are still living with its concequences today. Doesn't mean it's important for British people.
You don't think that the creation of the modern world and our role in it is of import to the British people? What about Brits who have roots in those countries? Do you not also understand that the nation upon which the empire had the most impact was Britain?
The industrial revolution happened in England first because France and Germany were battered and exhausted by war. Once the Germans (with their negligable colonies) caught on, they far outpaced us in industrial production.
The Empire may have helped by giving British businesses a place to dump cheap goods but by no means was it a nessesary precursor to industrialisation.
Right, I'm giving up here, because you are just talking nonsense now. There is literally no point in discussing this further with you, as your understanding of this topic is deeply, deeply flawed.
21049
Post by: kamakazepanda
The industrial revolution happened in England first because France and Germany were battered and exhausted by war. Once the Germans (with their negligable colonies) caught on, they far outpaced us in industrial production.
The Empire may have helped by giving British businesses a place to dump cheap goods but by no means was it a nessesary precursor to industrialisation.
Hmmm this is the industrial revolution your talking about right?  Germany wasn't even a unified nation at the time of the industrial revolution.
Personally i think the Empire is an important era to teach, even if your not directly teaching about "the British Empire" the time period it existed in was still one of radical change which shaped the world we live in today.
4412
Post by: George Spiggott
British Empire not important to Britain? I nearly dropped my cup of tea into my curry when I read that!
Bosh and flim flam!
As an example here's a wiki of Indian words in common English usage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_words_of_Indian_origin
48860
Post by: Joey
How many words are of Germanic origin?
How much does the average schoolchild know about the Anglo-Saxon migration?
Yeah, no.
Just because something is recent doesn't mean it's important. Some are, like suffrage and the evolution of democracy, others, like the empire, are not.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
I think its hard to argue the British Empire, on of the most world altering political entities in the history of the planet isn't important. Understanding the British Empire is crucial to the history of how many countries? Its hard to talk at all about global history and ignore the Empire. Likewise, how can you talk about how Britain got to where it is now without talking about the Empire? Empire and Colonization dominated British foreign policy for nearly 400 years.
48860
Post by: Joey
LordofHats wrote:I think its hard to argue the British Empire, on of the most world altering political entities in the history of the planet isn't important. Understanding the British Empire is crucial to the history of how many countries? Its hard to talk at all about global history and ignore the Empire.
Isn't AS important. Rawke's drift may well be a bombastic peice of British history but it's not in the same league as the miner's strike or the second world war. Automatically Appended Next Post: LordofHats wrote:Empire and Colonization dominated British foreign policy for nearly 400 years.
Not when Napoleon sacked Moscow, or Hitler invaded Poland. There's a reason the Japanese took Singapore-and the Australians have never forgiven the British for it.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
LordofHats wrote:I think its hard to argue the British Empire, on of the most world altering political entities in the history of the planet isn't important. Understanding the British Empire is crucial to the history of how many countries? Its hard to talk at all about global history and ignore the Empire. Likewise, how can you talk about how Britain got to where it is now without talking about the Empire? Empire and Colonization dominated British foreign policy for nearly 400 years.
And yet "The Empire" is strangely absent from many English history curricula. It is quite sad to be honest. It would be nice if we were more embracing of this period of our history. As far as I remember the closest we ever got to learning about the Empire in my history classes (up to and including GCSE) was learning about the Cutty Sark.
4412
Post by: George Spiggott
Joey wrote:How many words are of Germanic origin?
How much does the average schoolchild know about the Anglo-Saxon migration?
Yeah, no.
Just because something is recent doesn't mean it's important. Some are, like suffrage and the evolution of democracy, others, like the empire, are not.
It's not the elapsed time that's important it's the impact on our everyday lives. For what it's worth suffrage and the evolution of democracy (if they are to be considered separate subjects) are both intertwined with empire. Empire defined the mindset of the English (and a lot of other nations) during the period it existed, it redefined wealth, politics and class.
How much does anyone know about the Anglo-Saxon migration? Due to the lack of written material in the period it barely counts as history.
Joey wrote:The Empire may have helped by giving British businesses a place to dump cheap goods but by no means was it a nessesary precursor to industrialisation.
You have it backwards. The empire is a place to gain cheap commodities and raw materials. Coincidentally it works just the same as neo-colonialism, but with more infrastructure. Empire is therefore strongly interconnected with industrialisation in Britain. Industrialisation drives political change, and so on...
465
Post by: Redbeard
Grakmar wrote:
Nothing at all happens in the world up until Columbus discovers America (1492)! Nothing happens again until The Mayflower (1620). Then, a whole bunch of nothing happens until the American Revolution (1776). Then, real history begins in detail. We learn all sorts of interesting stuff detailing all sorts of history. Then, we get to the American Civil War (1861-1865). After the American Civil War, nothing happens until the roaring 20s, with mobsters and jazz and speakeasies. Then, the Great Depression happens, and then America saves everyone by single-handedly winning WW2 (why is it called 2 when it's the only one?). Then, nothing happens until Martin Luther King comes along in the late 60s. He... frees the slaves? Yeah, that's it. And then, history ends and we're at modern day!
American history curriculum, at least when I was in school, were very politically motivated, and as a consequence, contained lots of trivia and not a lot of what I'd consider important history. For example, February is Black History Month (perhaps that's been PCized to African American history month now). But, because African Americans were slaves for much of American history, and socio-economically disenfrachised for another century following that, they didn't really contribute a whole lot that has real historical significance. So, instead of spending time learning about the foundation of the country's government, we learned that Jesse Owens was the only American athlete to ever compete in the Olympic games (no others are ever mentioned in US history classes), and that George Washington Carver invented several thousand things to do with peanuts. I also know that the Tuskegee Airmen were the only American pilots to fly combat missions during World War II (again, no other squadron is ever mentioned by name or number in US history classes).
We then follow that up with Women's History month, Asian-pacific history month, and now, LBGT history month, thereby ensuring that American students learn nothing about actually relevant historical events for four months of the year. And then we wonder why American education is so widely mocked in the rest of the world.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
American history curriculum, at least when I was in school, were very politically motivated, and as a consequence, contained lots of trivia and not a lot of what I'd consider important history.
Most US History students cannot do the following:
-Explain the base reasons for the American Revolution
-Explain the base reasons for the War of 1812
-Explain why slavery flourished in the United States while dying out elsewhere
-Explain why the Civil War occured and what it meant in US History
-Explain the origin and effects of the Industrial Revolution in US History (this in particular is HUGE failure of how we educate people about our history).
-Explain the origins, events, and effects of the Progressive Era on US culture
-Explain the origin, events, and effects of the Great Depression
-Explain why we entered WWI
-Explain why Japan attacked Pearl Harbor
-Explain why the US became involved in Korea and Vietnam
Among numerous other things. I'd bet a lot of money I'd get wrong or incomplete answers asking the majority of high school students to do the above.
5534
Post by: dogma
Redbeard wrote:And then we wonder why American education is so widely mocked in the rest of the world.
Actually, I've found that most of the mockery of American education is done by Americans who see being in the top 10-25 (depending on metric), as opposed to number 1, to be "awful". Automatically Appended Next Post: LordofHats wrote:
Among numerous other things. I'd bet a lot of money I'd get wrong or incomplete answers asking the majority of high school students to do the above.
My friend taught a class on American government at the collegiate level. The first test, about 3 weeks into the semester, was on the Constitution. Not even any sort of interpretive noise, but stuff like what individual amendments do, what the powers of each branch are, etc.
Invariably, this test would be the worst for all but a few members of the class.
Of course, he knew this, and basically only administered the test so he knew what to focus on during the semester. This is also why he had a policy of dropping the lowest test score at the end of the semester. Smart kids got a cushion, everyone else played catch-up.
This is why I taught I-poli, it gave me the luxury of assuming all my students knew nothing.
15594
Post by: Albatross
Joey ranking the miner's strike alongside WWII = Mind blown.
7653
Post by: Corpsesarefun
Albatross wrote:Joey ranking the miner's strike alongside WWII = Mind blown.
Mate the more recent history is the more important it is!
That's why who won celebrity big brother is equally as important as world war two.
11029
Post by: Ketara
Joey wrote:Just because something is recent doesn't mean it's important. Some are, like suffrage and the evolution of democracy, others, like the empire, are not.
Why is the evolution of democracy important? In fact, how could democracy even be considered to have evolved?
It sounds to me like your concept of 'what is important and should be taught in schools' is dangerously tainted by a political bias there, straight from the bat. I see no more importance in the miners strikes then I would in the Poll Tax Riots.
It's times like these I think E.H. Carr must be rolling in his grave.
514
Post by: Orlanth
Back when I was at school there was a grounding in narrative British history.
This was quietly removed as 'irrelevant' or 'untrendy' by the previous administration. A narrative British history has only recently returned to the school curriculum, it was one of the first things the Cameron government did.
During the last decade 'history' was reduced to post 1945 with side topics on colonialism, slavery and the womens liberation movement. Its as if they wanted to make a point. The English Civil War and William the Conqueror were barely touched on the formal curriculum, so the American War of Independence gets even less part.
A generation has grown up almost utterly devoid of their heritage. You wont have to travel far to find a kid who hadn't heard of Wellington, Cromwell or Churchill.
48860
Post by: Joey
Albatross wrote:Joey ranking the miner's strike alongside WWII = Mind blown.
If you think that's what I said then your reading comprehension is piss-poor. Automatically Appended Next Post: Ketara wrote:Joey wrote:Just because something is recent doesn't mean it's important. Some are, like suffrage and the evolution of democracy, others, like the empire, are not.
Why is the evolution of democracy important? In fact, how could democracy even be considered to have evolved?
The average citizen knows very little about the way that democracy works, this is a bad thing and should be rectified.
I'd rather people knew what the cabinet actually do, than know that a quarter of the world used to be pink.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
Joey wrote:I'd rather people knew what the cabinet actually do, than know that a quarter of the world used to be pink.
You're against people sympathetic to communism now? 
7653
Post by: Corpsesarefun
Joey wrote:
The average citizen knows very little about the way that democracy works, this is a bad thing and should be rectified.
I'd rather people knew what the cabinet actually do, than know that a quarter of the world used to be pink.
It's much easier to teach school kids the latter rather than the former.
48860
Post by: Joey
corpsesarefun wrote:Joey wrote:
The average citizen knows very little about the way that democracy works, this is a bad thing and should be rectified.
I'd rather people knew what the cabinet actually do, than know that a quarter of the world used to be pink.
It's much easier to teach school kids the latter rather than the former.
It's about time children got taught complicated issues rather than just churning out essays.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
Joey wrote:It's about time children got taught complicated issues rather than just churning out essays.
Didn't you fail all your exams?
27391
Post by: purplefood
SilverMK2 wrote:Joey wrote:It's about time children got taught complicated issues rather than just churning out essays.
Didn't you fail all your exams?
According to himself he did.
7653
Post by: Corpsesarefun
Joey wrote:corpsesarefun wrote:Joey wrote:
The average citizen knows very little about the way that democracy works, this is a bad thing and should be rectified.
I'd rather people knew what the cabinet actually do, than know that a quarter of the world used to be pink.
It's much easier to teach school kids the latter rather than the former.
It's about time children got taught complicated issues rather than just churning out essays.
And while we're at it lets teach quantum mechanics and differential equations at primary schools, we waste our time teaching kids "multiplication" lets just skip to the good bit!
48860
Post by: Joey
corpsesarefun wrote:Joey wrote:corpsesarefun wrote:Joey wrote:
The average citizen knows very little about the way that democracy works, this is a bad thing and should be rectified.
I'd rather people knew what the cabinet actually do, than know that a quarter of the world used to be pink.
It's much easier to teach school kids the latter rather than the former.
It's about time children got taught complicated issues rather than just churning out essays.
And while we're at it lets teach quantum mechanics and differential equations at primary schools, we waste our time teaching kids "multiplication" lets just skip to the good bit!
Quantum mechanics isn't exactly on the same level as the fundamentals of British democracy.
It'd mean MPs didn't have to stop doing their actual jobs in order to attend parliamentory sessions that they know will be on tv, for one.
Orrr MPs blaming the judiciary for things when they shouldn't be.
Or every single Europe-related headline.
These are contempory issues in which a public awareness of the mechanism of democracy is nessesary to understand.
I think schoolchildren in India, Pakistan, Palestine, et al, would be better off knowing about the history of the British Empire than schoolchildren in Britain.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Explaining democracy to the plebs is what Civics classes are for, not history...
5534
Post by: dogma
Orlanth wrote:Back when I was at school there was a grounding in narrative British history.
This was quietly removed as 'irrelevant' or 'untrendy' by the previous administration. A narrative British history has only recently returned to the school curriculum, it was one of the first things the Cameron government did.
Academically, it is irrelevant. Its only relevant in terms of national identity.
LordofHats wrote:Explaining democracy to the plebs is what Civics classes are for, not history...
There is very little difference. Automatically Appended Next Post: corpsesarefun wrote:Joey wrote:corpsesarefun wrote:Joey wrote:
The average citizen knows very little about the way that democracy works, this is a bad thing and should be rectified.
I'd rather people knew what the cabinet actually do, than know that a quarter of the world used to be pink.
It's much easier to teach school kids the latter rather than the former.
It's about time children got taught complicated issues rather than just churning out essays.
And while we're at it lets teach quantum mechanics and differential equations at primary schools, we waste our time teaching kids "multiplication" lets just skip to the good bit!
Basically.
Politics are complicated, ridiculously so. You don't want to teach children about them. Teaching children about politics creates people like me.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
There wasn't really any difference when I was in school but I thought that was stupid. Civics classes should teach government, history should teach history. There's going to be overlap but they shouldn't be interchangeable.
48860
Post by: Joey
LordofHats wrote:There wasn't really any difference when I was in school but I thought that was stupid. Civics classes should teach government, history should teach history. There's going to be overlap but they shouldn't be interchangeable.
The closest we had to civic classes were citizenship classes where everyone dossed around and wrote about a paragraph or so in an hour.
Anything that's not a "hard subject" is given a lower priority by schools, and is not the history of democracy the history of the West? What would we be without the Greek polis, the Roman Empire, the Magna Carta, universal suffrage?
5534
Post by: dogma
LordofHats wrote:There wasn't really any difference when I was in school but I thought that was stupid. Civics classes should teach government, history should teach history. There's going to be overlap but they shouldn't be interchangeable.
In a practical sense, civics teach what your government does, and why it does it. Until you get into theory, there isn't much difference between poli sci, and history.
15594
Post by: Albatross
Joey wrote:Albatross wrote:Joey ranking the miner's strike alongside WWII = Mind blown.
If you think that's what I said then your reading comprehension is piss-poor.
I think we've already established your writing deficiencies, so I'm inclined to believe it's your fault for failing to express yourself properly. Perhaps you should, in future, steer cleer of absurd absolutist statements, and focus on crafting more subtle arguments.
Why did you edit that part out of your post, incidentally? It appears to have disappeared...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
No wait, here it is:
Joey wrote:Rawke's drift may well be a bombastic peice of British history but it's not in the same league as the miner's strike or the second world war.
And it's 'Rorke's Drift', incidentally.
4412
Post by: George Spiggott
Albatross wrote:Joey wrote:Rawke's drift may well be a bombastic peice of British history but it's not in the same league as the miner's strike or the second world war.
And it's 'Rorke's Drift', incidentally.
He's right, 'Rorke's Drift isn't in the same league as miner's strike or the Second World War. Nor is the miner's strike in the same league as the Second World War. There is considerably more to British colonialism than one minor skirmish at the arse end of a minor colony.
Orlanth wrote:This was quietly removed as 'irrelevant' or 'untrendy' by the previous administration. A narrative British history has only recently returned to the school curriculum, it was one of the first things the Cameron government did.
This policy actually began in the 1980s. Tory policy has clearly adapted for the better here.
10920
Post by: Goliath
Joey wrote:Albatross wrote:Joey ranking the miner's strike alongside WWII = Mind blown.
If you think that's what I said then your reading comprehension is piss-poor.
It's exactly what you said. It might not have been what you meant, but it was definitely what you said.
52525
Post by: Sonophos
SilverMK2 wrote:Joey wrote:I'd rather people knew what the cabinet actually do, than know that a quarter of the world used to be pink.
You're against people sympathetic to communism now?
Nonono. Pink was queen Victoria's favourite colour so she had the land surface of the empire painted pink.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
corpsesarefun wrote:Joey wrote:corpsesarefun wrote:Joey wrote:
The average citizen knows very little about the way that democracy works, this is a bad thing and should be rectified.
I'd rather people knew what the cabinet actually do, than know that a quarter of the world used to be pink.
It's much easier to teach school kids the latter rather than the former.
It's about time children got taught complicated issues rather than just churning out essays.
And while we're at it lets teach quantum mechanics and differential equations at primary schools, we waste our time teaching kids "multiplication" lets just skip to the good bit!
I used to have lessons in engineering, reletavistic physics and a number of other university level subjects. It was called "the only things on are OU lectures; a static picture of a girl and a blackboard; and some static, because there are only 3 channels and it is 6am you hyperactive child you".
I can remember explaining how space time was curved by black holes to a rather startled primary school teacher.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Albatross wrote:Joey ranking the miner's strike alongside WWII = Mind blown.
Alby whats the Miner's Strike?
52525
Post by: Sonophos
There were these miners and Mrs Thatcher didn't like thier unions. The Mines were nationalised and Mrs thatcher wanted to privatise the industry so she fethed the miners over and started a minor civil war with them.
It was a big deal over here at the time and would of lost her the next election if Argentina hadn't invaded the Falklands and got handed it's posterior on a platter.
48860
Post by: Joey
I wasn't puting it on the same level as the second world war I was simply saying that it was important to contemporary Britain in a way that "The Empire" is not.
I grew up in an ex-coal minding village(though the pits were gone by the 80s) surrounded by dead industry so it's kind of relevant.
15594
Post by: Albatross
Frazzled wrote:Albatross wrote:Joey ranking the miner's strike alongside WWII = Mind blown.
Alby whats the Miner's Strike?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_miners'_strike_(1984%E2%80%931985)
There you go. As you can see, it's a divisive issue. I can't help but think think that certain people would like to teach this incident from a very specific perspective... 
40132
Post by: ArbeitsSchu
There is no point claiming that one aspect of history is "more important" than another, because just about everything in 'history' changes in importance depending on the subject at hand. Besides which "importance" is incredibly broad and subjective as a term.
52525
Post by: Sonophos
Can we get back to the important point that TEA was thrown into the sea?
48860
Post by: Joey
Pfft most British people prefer coffee anyway.
53002
Post by: Tibbsy
Joey wrote:Pfft most British people prefer coffee anyway.
I would probably have to disagree with you here, most of the people I know prefer tea, and the amount of tea that gets drunk in our office would probably kill most normal people
221
Post by: Frazzled
Albatross wrote:Frazzled wrote:Albatross wrote:Joey ranking the miner's strike alongside WWII = Mind blown.
Alby whats the Miner's Strike?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_miners'_strike_(1984%E2%80%931985)
There you go. As you can see, it's a divisive issue. I can't help but think think that certain people would like to teach this incident from a very specific perspective...
Thanks.
Mining officially sucks as an occupation. I freely admit miners are manlier men than Frazzled.
52525
Post by: Sonophos
Frazzled wrote:Albatross wrote:Frazzled wrote:Albatross wrote:Joey ranking the miner's strike alongside WWII = Mind blown.
Alby whats the Miner's Strike?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_miners'_strike_(1984%E2%80%931985)
There you go. As you can see, it's a divisive issue. I can't help but think think that certain people would like to teach this incident from a very specific perspective...
Thanks.
Mining officially sucks as an occupation. I freely admit miners are manlier men than Frazzled.
Isn't that because you are a weiner dog? Automatically Appended Next Post: Joey wrote:Pfft most British people prefer coffee anyway.
{posh} you are not fot for polite society sir! Kindly leave the room. {/posh}
40132
Post by: ArbeitsSchu
We have a Tea Council and a Tea Guild!
http://www.tea.co.uk/a-social-history
See how important Tea is? (When discussing the history of tea.)
15594
Post by: Albatross
Tibbsy wrote:Joey wrote:Pfft most British people prefer coffee anyway.
I would probably have to disagree with you here, most of the people I know prefer tea, and the amount of tea that gets drunk in our office would probably kill most normal people
Yeah, I'm gonna need to see to figures on that one.
55086
Post by: Electro
Joey wrote:Pfft most British people prefer coffee anyway.
Reported for trolling
Anyway, back on topic, you will have difficulty finding much. To be honest US history is not taught in UK schools very much. I did a little on the American Civil War and the stelment of the west. Mostly about how nasty everyone was to the Native Americans etc etc (the normaly guilt trip that pervaided most of school history. Fortunatly going to a catholic school we got to be the persecuted ones when learning about the reformation).
11029
Post by: Ketara
Albatross wrote:Tibbsy wrote:Joey wrote:Pfft most British people prefer coffee anyway.
I would probably have to disagree with you here, most of the people I know prefer tea, and the amount of tea that gets drunk in our office would probably kill most normal people
Yeah, I'm gonna need to see to figures on that one.
I've only met one serious coffee addict in my time here, and about twenty tea addicts to counterbalance that.
5394
Post by: reds8n
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/markets/commodities/decline-in-uk-tea-drinking-worries-indian-tea-industry/articleshow/12181901.cms
KOLKATA: Tea drinking has for centuries been a proud UK tradition, leading to such coinage as tea parties, tea breaks, and also a great source of revenue for India's tea industry as Britons are the biggest consumers of tea per capita. That could change in the next decade.
The United Nations food agency, the Food & Agriculture Organization (FAO), has forecast that by 2021, Britons will be consuming 15% less tea than 15 years earlier. This decline has emerged as a concern for the Indian tea industry, whose exports to the UK have dwindled to 16 million kg from 22 million kg over the last five years.
A delegation from the Indian Tea Association ( ITA) and the Tea Board of India will visit the UK on March 17 for talks with the UK Tea Council as well as with buyers. Tea companies are also looking to increase their presence in the instant tea market. Goodricke Group for instance, has increased its instant tea supply to Typhoo, a leading brand in the UK. In the 12th Plan, the Indian tea industry has sought additional funds for generic promotion of tea in the UK and other overseas markets.
Azam Monem, director of McLeod Russel India, said: "The UK tea market has become stagnant. The country consumes 100 million kg of tea annually, of which nearly 60 million kg is imported from Africa. UK is gradually leaning towards tea variants where tea content is less, like camomile tea and lemon tea. In this way per cup consumption of tea has gone up in the UK. What we are seeing in the UK is that supermarket brands have shown a decline, while sales of better packeteers like Taylors of Harrogate are increasing." McLeod is the largest integrated tea company in the world.
Monem said tighter European Union laws on maximum residue limit (MRL) may be one of the reasons for declining Indian tea exports. "We will discuss this issue during our visit to the UK," he said.
AN Singh, managing director of Goodricke Group said: "We have to cater to the UK market according to their choice. In fact, Britons have developed a taste for instant tea. In calendar 2011, we sold more instant tea to Typhoo. Nearly 30% of our total production of 400 tonne was sold to Typhoo."
UK first imported tea in 1660. After the first official import in the 1660s of two ounces, tea shipments to the UK soared to 24 million pounds by the start of the 1800s, and at their most recent high in 2006, topped 136,000 tonne. However, tea shipments have declined since then to 119,200 tonnes by 2010. The downtrend will continue, according to the FAO.
The FAO failed to expand on its forecast, although it did hint that a likely enemy, coffee, may be involved. A research in the UK market "suggested that as household expenditure of non-alcoholic beverages increased, consumers tended to spend proportionately less on black tea and more on coffee". Per capita consumption of coffee rose from 2.78 kg in 2007 to 3.14 kg in 2009, according to the International Coffee Organization, although even here consumption growth has not been smooth, falling to 3.04 kg in 2010.
CS Bedi, chairman of Indian Tea Association, does not agree that coffee is eating into the tea market. "It is too early to comment on whether coffee has made a dent in the UK tea market. The UK market is very much on our radar. We have spoken to the Tea Board for generic promotion of Indian tea in all global markets, including the UK," Bedi said.
In fact, the FAO observes that tea producing countries need to look to themselves if they wish to keep tea prices near the 2011 level of $2.85 a kg on average, despite production growth estimated at 1.9% a year over the next decade. "Greater efforts should be directed at expanding demand," the FAO said in comments following a tea summit.
20983
Post by: Ratius
Tea > coffee imho.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
James Bond hated tea.
55086
Post by: Electro
I think you mean...
Ratius wrote:Tea > coffee Fact!
48860
Post by: Joey
It's amazing how people will regard tea as the epitomy of British drinking habits, yet won't even touch bitter/ale, preferring instead German lager.
Just saying.
53002
Post by: Tibbsy
Electro is correct
And a good bitter/ale beats a lager by far... Although some lagers are ok...
55086
Post by: Electro
Nothing wrong with German larger, or British ale. Its the cheap French, Danish, American and Australian stuff that is the problem.
52525
Post by: Sonophos
Ratius wrote:Tea > coffee imho.
Tea: the one thing an Englishman, an Irishman and a Scotsman can agree on.
31953
Post by: nomsheep
On the topic of tea and british, I had to do about a weeks worth of work on the proccess and health hazards of making good tea in my mechanics course.
In school I learnt about the american civil war which basically summed up to the heroic and valiant north decided that slaves were bad. so the cowardly and decadant south fought pointlessly ( I mean we all know who was going to win.) against our brave heros. other stuff happened but we don't really care.
On the topic of independence, my mum didn't even know the americans where ever a part of the colonies or that they had a war for independence and my knowledge of it starts and ends at there was a war.
Nom
53002
Post by: Tibbsy
Back to the subject of tea being awesome; there is actually a British Standard on how to make a pot of tea, to the best of my knowledge, there doesn't exist one for coffee....
Back to the actual topic; The only things I know about American history are things I've discovered on my own; beyond a period of learning about the slave trade in school (We watched that film/series Roots, and that's about it) We covered nothing at school on American history.
40132
Post by: ArbeitsSchu
Joey wrote:It's amazing how people will regard tea as the epitomy of British drinking habits, yet won't even touch bitter/ale, preferring instead German lager.
Just saying.
I'm far too aware of how easy it is to tamper with the contents of the average cask to be really comfortable drinking it. Automatically Appended Next Post: Little known fact. American beer is actually the water they drew out of the bay after they had dumped the tea in it, which is why its just brown water,, and another reason why we just upped and left in disgust after some harsh punitive measures for wasting all that tea,. Probably.
15594
Post by: Albatross
I'm inclined to blame the Tories for the recent decline in tea-drinking.
Am I doing it right?
4412
Post by: George Spiggott
Kilkrazy wrote:The fictional James Bond hated tea.
Similarly, nobody cares what Gandalf thinks.
Electro wrote:I think you mean...
Ratius wrote:Tea > coffee Science Fact!
A double hit! I'm a one man fixing phenomenon!
52525
Post by: Sonophos
Albatross wrote:I'm inclined to blame the Tories for the recent decline in tea-drinking.
Am I doing it right?
You need a bit more vitriol, but it's a good start.
|
|
