Another thread discussion made me curious about a bit of your education.
How much of it is centered on things like the American Colonies, the Revolutionary War, and the eventual War of 1812? Given your nations rather long history, I'm sure they don't receive the same emphasis that they get on this side of the pond, but something I just saw kinda surprised me and made me curious.
Not much. When I was in school 15-20 years ago, history lessons focussed on early British history (1066) and the Tudor period. When I sat my GCSE exam at 16 , my history exam was on WW1 and WW2.
Out of the general sweep of history, the American portion of it gets very little focus I think.
The curriculum is likely different now than when I was at school 20+ years ago! but my recollection is hardly anything.
As you rightly point out, as an expansionist nation with many, many hundreds of years of history, it's almost a footnote from a British perspective.
As I'm sure is similar in the US though, education gets increasingly more specialist as you progress through the levels, so those who carried History as a subject later into their educations may have a different experience.
Our focus was mainly industrial revolution and WWII IIRC, but I didn't study it beyond the age of 14.
Strangely enough I was just thinking about this same thing.
In main stream education the American Revolutionary War isn't covered. I'm not sure if it's changed now, but I don't think so.
Certainly the topics ranged from WW2, Women's suffrage, The Russian Revolution, Spanish Civil War and various Scottish bits and pieces. I think the Emphasis is mostly on Europe when it comes to history beyond our borders. Certainly Colonial History wasn't a thing, which is a bit of a shame.
I'd imagine there is a bit of a drift to The First World War and perhaps more Scottish History what with upcoming events.
In main stream education the American Revolutionary War isn't covered. I'm not sure if it's changed now, but I don't think so.
Certainly the topics ranged from WW2, Women's suffrage, The Russian Revolution, Spanish Civil War and various Scottish bits and pieces. I think the Emphasis is mostly on Europe when it comes to history beyond our borders. Certainly Colonial History wasn't a thing, which is a bit of a shame.
I'd imagine there is a bit of a drift to The First World War and perhaps more Scottish History what with upcoming events.
Your question regarding it was was caught me off guard. Lexington and Concord is pretty much general knowledge among people in the US, but your question made me realize you didn't know anything about it.
Yeah, it's not really covered very much until higher education as far as I'm aware.
This might sound a bit condescending, but if you think about it, even though for the US it was the formation of their country, for the UK it was basically just more 'trouble in the colonies', so it's not going to get all that much attention.
If you don't specialise in history pretty much none,
and even if you do you may have no exposure to it in class (I didn't and I studied history up until the final year I left school, my major bits were the industrial revolution, WWI & the social change relating to it and crusades)
but to an extent it used to depend on your school, they would tailor their teaching to whatever the exam board they used wanted
In main stream education the American Revolutionary War isn't covered. I'm not sure if it's changed now, but I don't think so.
Certainly the topics ranged from WW2, Women's suffrage, The Russian Revolution, Spanish Civil War and various Scottish bits and pieces. I think the Emphasis is mostly on Europe when it comes to history beyond our borders. Certainly Colonial History wasn't a thing, which is a bit of a shame.
I'd imagine there is a bit of a drift to The First World War and perhaps more Scottish History what with upcoming events.
Your question regarding it was was caught me off guard. Lexington and Concord is pretty much general knowledge among people in the US, but your question made me realize you didn't know anything about it.
I think knowing more might cause us to have animosity to our treacherous European neighbours!
Recommend any, relatively light, books on the subject?
In the GCSE history course (last year of secondary school), the topics that we do are are WWI aftermaths, the great depression in america, vietnam, and britain in the 20th century.
Prior to that, we do medieval history, for example invasion of 1066 etc
Goliath wrote: Yeah, it's not really covered very much until higher education as far as I'm aware.
This might sound a bit condescending, but if you think about it, even though for the US it was the formation of their country, for the UK it was basically just more 'trouble in the colonies', so it's not going to get all that much attention.
It was hardly more then just trouble in the colonies. Britain put out much more military might in the Revolutionary War then they did in the 7 Year War (French and Indian, for observing Americans), and you guys (and us) were duking it out with another world spanning Empire in that one.
Like I said originally, I figured it wouldn't be that covered, but I'm honestly amazed that it wasn't really even touched on at all, especially given what came from the whole affair.
In main stream education the American Revolutionary War isn't covered. I'm not sure if it's changed now, but I don't think so.
Certainly the topics ranged from WW2, Women's suffrage, The Russian Revolution, Spanish Civil War and various Scottish bits and pieces. I think the Emphasis is mostly on Europe when it comes to history beyond our borders. Certainly Colonial History wasn't a thing, which is a bit of a shame.
I'd imagine there is a bit of a drift to The First World War and perhaps more Scottish History what with upcoming events.
Your question regarding it was was caught me off guard. Lexington and Concord is pretty much general knowledge among people in the US, but your question made me realize you didn't know anything about it.
I think knowing more might cause us to have animosity to our treacherous European neighbours!
Recommend any, relatively light, books on the subject?
Light books? Not really. 1776 would be a great read though if you wanted to get a lot of the meat and potato's behind the beginning of it all. Most books that I'm aware of are going to be written regarding the American POV though.
The colonisation of America was an option for students in their last year of secondary school a few years before my time IRC. From what I studied though in fifth, America didn't receive much more than a brief mentions like "The US entered the war, the end". Given that in Scotland the current discussion is about whether we should be dropping more of the British history elements for Scottish ones (ie they're nonexistant), I doubt America will be seeing much more focus. As for foreign countries which are studied I remember the Russian revolution, founding of Germany and Spanish civil war being part of the curriculum, but little outside of the immediate area of Europe (bar with the WWI/ WWII parts).
My friends studying history at university are studying the US though as modules. McCarthyism seems to be a popular one.
You need to look at the UK history teaching as split two, possibly three ways.
1. Technical 'academies' often remove history from the curriculum, though whether this is to disestablish the Brtiish identity or to concentrate on other subjects is open to debate. If so it blends into the second case.
2. Most state schools teach a very watered down and often highly dogmatised history. School pupils who have not heard of Churchill are a minority, there are still worrisome moves particularly in schools staffed by the far left, which is a sufficiently large proportion sadly enough to sideline history for reasons of either pandering to the rise in balkanisation of British society or to disenfranchise established values in favour of long term changes of the political dialectic.
New Labour was big on this, and as a rule history was considered something from the past that should remain in the past. It was useful on a party political level, but appalling for lasting social cohesion.
3. Independent schools still teach history. Some focus on more modern history others offer a broader curriculum stretching from the Roman invasion through to the 20th century.
As a rule of thumb quality schools teach a broad history in shallow detail to younger pupils and switch to modern history for the GCSE exams at 16. Late teens taking History as an elect course for 'A' Levels tend to specialise in modern or medieval European and British/English history.
Those covering the 18th century and Napoleonic Era will likely cover the US War of Independence.
One point to note is that the Era is known in the UK mainly as the Napoleonic era or the Regency depending on whether we are discussing world or UK history respectively.
Rebellion in the American colonies was not really too big an issue compared to the horrors of Madame Guillotine or the rise of Bonaparte. Thus British history still looks at things this way.
The other point is the US is right to keep teaching their people their history proudly, and don't let anyone tell you its 'jingoistic' to do so. Keep flying the flag in school rooms, and let no one tell you its 'fascist' to do so. Lest you suffer our fate and have your past undermined, as history is the foundation of society.
Australia is sort of similar to Britain, right? Here I remember covering the American civil war more than I remember covering the revolutionary one. It's been a while, though, so maybe I've just forgotten about it. Anything I learned about the revolutionary war in history class has probably been inextricably mixed with what I learned from Sid Meier's Colonization. I did pick up that your post in that other thread was about the revolutionary war, though.
The other main piece of American history I remember covering is the Mai Lai Massacre, and I guess the bits of WW2 that took place in Asia.
2. Most state schools teach a very watered down and often highly dogmatised history. School pupils who have not heard of Churchill are a minority, there are still worrisome moves particularly in schools staffed by the far left, .
State schools staffed by the far left? WTF? Its high time you took your tin foil hat off before it rots your brain.
Colonial history just isn't that important given the relatively small amount of time available to teach secondary school history. If it was it would be India, not the Americas given the importance that the Raj had to the British Empire and by extension British history.
I did standard and higher history (which took 3 years) and we covered the Crusades, the Chartists, the Plantagent kings (no idea why), the Wiemar republic, the origins of WWI and thats all I can remember. The scant Scottish history that I was taught (Malcome Canmore, Bannockburn and a bit about the Black Douglas IIRC)was in S1 and 2 so it wasn't even included in our exams. This was in the mid/late 90's though so things may have improved since then.
While to the USA, the creation of the USA is a topic of central importance, to the UK, it's one in a long series of important historical events.
By definition, everything prior to the AWI is shared history.
I think we can narrow this down. At least from the perspective of exchange history teachers who taught in my school, and the experiences of Americans I knew from uni.
As a broad but roughly accurate standard. UK history between the Pilgrim fathers and the beginning of the Revolution is firmly centered on what happened in the UK, US history places far more emphasis on the early colonies. US history starts with the Mayflower, events prior to that are usually seen through eyes of English history. Though this varies with local ethnic mix, New York state, for example, has/(?had?) an slanted medieval history curriculum which has been remarked upon in the US press due to its heavy bias towards discredited and heavily politically loaded study of Anglo-Irish history in particular, its the main reason for the proliferation of 'plastic paddies'.
The impression I get is that the curriculum is more concerned with teaching how to analyse sources, identify trends and actually interpret history than giving accounts of what happened- it seems to be assumed that you can wiki that if you're so inclined
It was shocking to me how ignorant most of the schoolkids were about the shared history of Ireland and Great Britain, but when I thought about it, it revealed more about our obsession with our relationship with the UK than anything else. Could do with a paragraph on the potato famine to prevent so many rude comments and jokes though.
I think there's an assumption of shared culture due to shared language between all the anglophone countries, but there's often these funny differences under the surface.
We learned a little about the American Revolution in school though. (In Ireland).
What's interesting to me is that History is not really a mandatory subject in many UK schools. If you do take it as an option though, I think it's a better curriculum than the one I studied- much less biased for one.
Then, we stopped talking about fighting the English for a while, moving on to political intrigue, with a focus surrounding Mary, Queen of Scots, Lord Darnley and all that sort of hijinks.
That brought us up to the Union of The Crowns. We then had a light touch on Oliver Cromwell, and the Glorious Revolution, but didn't go into too much detail at all. (It happened.)
That brought us onto the Jacobite Rebellion again, which, the way we were taught, wasn't particularly about the Scots fighting the English, but more about the different Kings with a mix of Catholics V Protestants.
Then, we sort of stepped away from full scale battles, but funnily enough, not violence, as we looked at The Highland Clearances along with historical life in the isles.
The last major module of my history class was a surprisingly down to earth, and, to be honest, pretty heartwarming focus on the Industrial Age as demonstrated by life in New Lanark, which we visited.
As my last year in history drew to a close, they were beginning lessons about World War 1 and, particularly Archduke Ferdinand.
One would be forgiven for thinking that Scottish history is particularly violent...
2. Most state schools teach a very watered down and often highly dogmatised history. School pupils who have not heard of Churchill are a minority, there are still worrisome moves particularly in schools staffed by the far left, .
State schools staffed by the far left? WTF? Its high time you took your tin foil hat off before it rots your brain.
There are plenty of state schools staffed by the far left. It's the elephant in the room.
I could give you recent anecdotes from both schools where kids of friends of mine attend but it would only be written off as hearsay by the closed minded, even though similar stories are heard nationwide.
Part of the problem is that kids are told left wing bs and anyone who has a problem with that is labeled either tin foil, or far right. Its those who apply such labels who are the problem, not those who wish to challenge the way kids are taught.
We sort of covered the final bits of it. Our A level history course covered the period 1805-1900. So we did some learning on the backstory at the end of the 1700s.
We did cover America from 1945-1990, which was rather boring to be completely honest, your nation didn't really get up to much apart from take part in several different wars with second world countries. (At least that is what they told us, I know you got up to more, but our exam boards don't really care)
The Civil Rights Movement is pretty interesting and also covered I believe, I certainly remember covering it or I think I do.
I definitely remember covering an aspect of it in an English class when looking at the "I Have a Dream" speech.
Thinking of the old English department and speaking of "The Left" in British schools, there were quite a few lefties in there and I certainly remember in the final two years of Secondary School topics being discussed in relation to texts we were studying.
Capital punishment, Israel, Nuclear weapons etc etc.
Everybody could voice their opinion and it really helped in starting on the path to having your own political opinion and being more politically aware.
Certainly I helped out with organising/fund raising things for Amnesty International after that.
The only time the US was studied in History when I was at school was the Great Depression and Race Relations. They were probably mentioned in topics on the World Wars, but I don't specifically remember, I remember it all being more about the 'home front'.
I think the key thing is that History isn't just learning to recite events and dates, but the study on how major events serve as catalysts for political or social change, and in those terms, the AWI just isn't all that interesting or relevant from the British perspective.
War of 1812? I would imagine less than 1 in 100 British people have even heard the term, let alone could tell you a thing about it (including the belligerents).
I think I'll run an experiment tomorrow, the two guys in my office are reasonably intelligent but have no particular historical interest. I'll ask them to list as many things as possible about these things as they know. Names, years, places, battles etc. See what comes up.
I'm not a Brit, but I remember that back in school, my history teacher spent exactly one lesson (i.e. 50 minutes) on the history of the USA, beginning with the Mayflower and ending with the Revolutionary War.
Even back then I thought it was ridiculous to basically ignore the single most influential nation of the west, but I guess my teacher reckoned looking at every battle fought in the Napoleonic Wars in depth gave you a better understanding of the world.
Goliath wrote: This might sound a bit condescending, but if you think about it, even though for the US it was the formation of their country, for the UK it was basically just more 'trouble in the colonies', so it's not going to get all that much attention.
So out of interest how does Australia fare in British history classes. I'd imagine it's just the same as the Yanks but since we are the youngest child maybe we get some love and attention?
Snrub wrote: So out of interest how does Australia fare in British history classes. I'd imagine it's just the same as the Yanks but since we are the youngest child maybe we get some love and attention?
Hahahaha. Our learning of Australia basically boiled down to. "We raped and killed their native population, then we filled the land with slaves and prisoners."
djones520 wrote:Another thread discussion made me curious about a bit of your education.
How much of it is centered on things like the American Colonies, the Revolutionary War, and the eventual War of 1812? Given your nations rather long history, I'm sure they don't receive the same emphasis that they get on this side of the pond, but something I just saw kinda surprised me and made me curious.
I was in a state school some seven to eight years ago. The curriculum then was roughly:-
-Romans
-The Tudors
-The Slave Trade
-World War 1
-Weimar Republic and Rise of Hitler
-World War 2
-The Cold War.
When I went back a few years later to consider teacher training, the English Civil War had been added to the list. With regards to college(16-18 year olds in this country), my particular college offered three options, Early Modern History, Modern History, and American History, each as separate 2 year A levels.
Da Boss wrote:
It was shocking to me how ignorant most of the schoolkids were about the shared history of Ireland and Great Britain, but when I thought about it, it revealed more about our obsession with our relationship with the UK than anything else. Could do with a paragraph on the potato famine to prevent so many rude comments and jokes though.
I never learnt a thing about Ireland in History. We did a play called 'Translations' in English GCSE, but that was the extent of our knowledge of Ireland's history.
Compel wrote:I didn't continue on with History as a subject at school 10 years ago in Scotland, picking Geography instead for my standard grades.
However, in the 3 years I did take it...
We started off with the Scottish Wars for Independence (aka Braveheart)
Then, we stopped talking about fighting the English for a while, moving on to political intrigue, with a focus surrounding Mary, Queen of Scots, Lord Darnley and all that sort of hijinks.
That brought us up to the Union of The Crowns. We then had a light touch on Oliver Cromwell, and the Glorious Revolution, but didn't go into too much detail at all. (It happened.)
That brought us onto the Jacobite Rebellion again, which, the way we were taught, wasn't particularly about the Scots fighting the English, but more about the different Kings with a mix of Catholics V Protestants.
Then, we sort of stepped away from full scale battles, but funnily enough, not violence, as we looked at The Highland Clearances along with historical life in the isles.
The last major module of my history class was a surprisingly down to earth, and, to be honest, pretty heartwarming focus on the Industrial Age as demonstrated by life in New Lanark, which we visited.
As my last year in history drew to a close, they were beginning lessons about World War 1 and, particularly Archduke Ferdinand.
One would be forgiven for thinking that Scottish history is particularly violent...
Funny. We did none of that Scottish history. I presume that's something added to the curriculum by the powers that be up north?
Palindrome wrote:
Not exactly convincing evidence of the teaching profession being riddled with the 'far left' though are they.
The teaching establishments have been stuffed full of the left wing for a long time now. It's more or less common knowledge. I mean, have you seen how many unions they have?
Snrub wrote:So out of interest how does Australia fare in British history classes. I'd imagine it's just the same as the Yanks but since we are the youngest child maybe we get some love and attention?
You got a few mentions with regards to criminals and the slave trade.
Riquende wrote: I think I'll run an experiment tomorrow, the two guys in my office are reasonably intelligent but have no particular historical interest. I'll ask them to list as many things as possible about these things as they know. Names, years, places, battles etc. See what comes up.
On the colonies: Nothing
On the AWI: Someone running along saying "the British are coming", something about tea, and Benjamin Franklin "was involved somehow".
Snrub wrote: So out of interest how does Australia fare in British history classes. I'd imagine it's just the same as the Yanks but since we are the youngest child maybe we get some love and attention?
Hahahaha. Our learning of Australia basically boiled down to. "We raped and killed their native population, then we filled the land with slaves and prisoners."
In Scotland, the most we focus on America is during the 14-15 year olds when they look at Martin Luther king, if you go on to study history, then there is the option to learn about the American wars of Independence, however most schools teach about Mary Queen of Scot's, the inter-world war period, the Liberal and Labor reforms of the late 1800's to early 1900's, and the Russian revolution, I think America is only taught in 2 schools.
When I was at school, 40 years ago, we followed a traditional history curriculum that pretty much skimmed through the whole of British Isles history from pre Roman Conquest up to the 20th century. It concentrated on England until we got to the Union with Scotland, then it became properly British.
We also did some major European stuff like the Crusades and the Reformation, where these affected Britain, and naturally we did some stuff about the Empire. There wasn’t any emphasis on the AWI, probably because when you have to get through 2,000 years you can't do things in much depth.
My daughter’s history curriculum is very different. She did a bunch of stuff about the formation of the first Chinese Empire. She did the colonisation of Australia, and the Slave Trade. Now she is doing a lot of First World War. There doesn’t seem to be an idea of teaching history as a progression. I don’t think she’s done any AWI.
Kilkrazy wrote: She did the colonisation of Australia, and the Slave Trade. Now she is doing a lot of First World War. There doesn’t seem to be an idea of teaching history as a progression.
I have found this talking to parents. Little concept of teaching progression and lots of focusing on "What we did wot woz wrong". I understand that the slave trade and colonialism were major events, but there dose seem to be a tendency to not give them any context, either historic or social, and just focus on a guilt trip.
Anyway, when I was at school we did allot on the Greeks and romans, and what they did for the world, along with a little about the rest of the ancient world. Then we moved to the 11th century, skipping about 1000 years with some mumblings about "The Dark Ages" at the start of a lesson, saying we have very little information and implying they were unimportant, which I now know is nonsense, but I think was a widely held view at the time.
We started with 1066 and all that, and a few of the events that lead up to the Norman invasion, the doomsday book etc.
I think there was a lesson or two on the following 200 years, mostly covering the magna carta.
Then the period of the Hundred years war, in quite allot of detail, especially the major battles, the black death, peasants revolt etc.
Then we jumped to the Tudors, and the Renascence. We looked at the reformation in quite a bit of detail and the shift from Christian art to secular art, along side the shift in power from the holy sea to individual countries.
After that we started on the Agricultural Revolution and industrial revolution, and worked forward in a bit of detail looking at industrialization of the UK (Handily ignoring the empire and wars) focusing on the wool and coal industry through the Victorian era. We also did some stuff on the the American west and Indian Wars (I got a good C in GCSE history, in part thanks to an excellent critique of Custers tactics at little bighorn - thanks to wargaming. And people think it is a waste of time). There was a bit on the slave trade. I think one lesson about slave transportation.
Then we looked at WW1.
There wasn't much on WW2. I think we did a little on the war on the home front, but nothing much.
In general in the early to mid 90's they stayed well clear of anything controversial.
Not a God damn thing back in the nineties, but I went to a... Naughty school as it were and we had other issues getting in the way of education, I for example, was told that I would never be able to read or write..now I am (sadly) one of the most intelligent people in a very large group of friends, the reason why I'm saying this? Simple, I wanted to learn about the American civil war 1 (just.kidding haha) and there were plenty of avenues open to me thankfully, so while it may not be part of the English curriculum but if you show an interest there are plenty of ways to learn
The teaching establishments have been stuffed full of the left wing for a long time now. It's more or less common knowledge. I mean, have you seen how many unions they have?
In my experience 'common knowledge' tends to be based o anecdotal evidence. Either way it still doesn't mean that state schools are staff by the far left, although given how far to the right the country, or at least England, as a whole seems to have gone in recent years maybe moderate left leaning views are now class as far left. It also doesn't mean that the curriculum has a leftist agenda.
Funny. We did none of that Scottish history. I presume that's something added to the curriculum by the powers that be up north?
As it should be, in fact local history should also be taught in schools.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Formosa wrote: so while it may not be part of the English curriculum but if you show an interest there are plenty of ways to learn
This is very true. As I said I did standard and higher grade history but most of it was uninteresting or irrelevant to me so I simply taught myself once I left school.
In my experience (Did GCSE in History), the syllabus we had killed pretty much any interest I had in history of any form that occured after 1900 (I guess 'modern history' would be the appropriate term).
My history lessons in a nutshell:
primary school:
Basically the same content as the 'horrible histories' books, but with all the gross/violent and vaguely interesting stuff cut out (so as not to offend or upset anyone)
secondary school (pre GCSE):
These are the Tudors, rather than looking at anything interesting, we are instead going to make you learn and regurgitate a long list of important dates, oh and a bunch of stuff that is factually inaccurate, but everyone believes that it happened so it did...
GCSE level had two parts:
'World War 1 and 2' - lets ignore most of the context, about 90% of the actual details of the wars (such as tactics, technology, specific battles of note, the political tensions and climate). Instead, here a large list of dates and places, all in isolation and out of context, that you must regurgitate:
'American History' - America didn't exist until WWI, here is a massive list of bills the government passed during the great depression, not that we are actually going to learn about it, just memorise these names & dates. Here is a few pages on the least interesting parts of the Watergate scandal, JFK got shot, the end...
p.s. these are the presidents, recite them in the correct order
This is why I started a history blog, to give people an idea that there's a whole lot of history out there that shaped who we are and ignoring it all doesn't do anyone any good.
Bearing in mind I left school over 20 years ago, we didn't touch on America at all
We mainly covered the slave trade, the industrial revolution, First World War, Roman Empire, Norse raids up to William the bastards invasion of England, Ancient Greece, Egypt.
My school is over 1000 years old, America barely counts as history yet...
Kilkrazy wrote: She did the colonisation of Australia, and the Slave Trade. Now she is doing a lot of First World War. There doesn’t seem to be an idea of teaching history as a progression.
I have found this talking to parents. Little concept of teaching progression and lots of focusing on "What we did wot woz wrong". I understand that the slave trade and colonialism were major events, but there dose seem to be a tendency to not give them any context, either historic or social, and just focus on a guilt trip.
...
...
.
I haven't got the guilt trip thing from my daughter's history homework.
The slave trade module showed Britain's involvement and also the fact that Britain was instrumental in putting a stop to it.
They looked at Australian colonisation and concluded after researching the topic that it had been a bad thing for the aborigines, which clearly is true.
Kilkrazy wrote: She did the colonisation of Australia, and the Slave Trade. Now she is doing a lot of First World War. There doesn’t seem to be an idea of teaching history as a progression.
I have found this talking to parents. Little concept of teaching progression and lots of focusing on "What we did wot woz wrong". I understand that the slave trade and colonialism were major events, but there dose seem to be a tendency to not give them any context, either historic or social, and just focus on a guilt trip.
...
...
.
I haven't got the guilt trip thing from my daughter's history homework.
The slave trade module showed Britain's involvement and also the fact that Britain was instrumental in putting a stop to it.
They looked at Australian colonisation and concluded after researching the topic that it had been a bad thing for the aborigines, which clearly is true.
Possibly just the way schools near me teach, or the parents I know have a complex about these things (teachers are all lefty loonies and this must be pushing an agenda etc.) I have no first hand experience as I don't have children and am just going on what I have been told by people at work etc.
djones520 wrote: Another thread discussion made me curious about a bit of your education.
How much of it is centered on things like the American Colonies, the Revolutionary War, and the eventual War of 1812? Given your nations rather long history, I'm sure they don't receive the same emphasis that they get on this side of the pond, but something I just saw kinda surprised me and made me curious.
Were the Nazis involved in the American Revolution? Then, British schools are not interested in it!
As far as Britain is concerned, it wasn't a war, anyway - just a minor skirmish!
History teaching in British schools can be summed up as thus: Battle of Hastings, Henry VIII, Spanish Armada, Dunkirk, and tweaking Hitler's moustache! Nothing else gets a look in.
History teaching in British schools can be summed up as thus: Battle of Hastings, Henry VIII, Spanish Armada, Dunkirk, and tweaking Hitler's moustache! Nothing else gets a look in.
Don't forget Agincourt and Cresse!
Serious question, what do kids in the US learn about in history?
We learned about the feudal system, various kings/queens and dates, historical events like the Spanish Armada and Hastings, WWI and II. Also the how the Church of England came about, Henry VIII, 100 years war, and so on. As KK said, our history is "shared" up until the revolution, then it becomes either World History or American History, as you have classes for both.
Snrub wrote: So out of interest how does Australia fare in British history classes. I'd imagine it's just the same as the Yanks but since we are the youngest child maybe we get some love and attention?
They just put up a poster with Australia and "Hazardous Animal Quarantine Zone-Do not Enter" written across it.
Snrub wrote: So out of interest how does Australia fare in British history classes. I'd imagine it's just the same as the Yanks but since we are the youngest child maybe we get some love and attention?
They just put up a poster with Australia and "Hazardous Animal Quarantine Zone-Do not Enter" written across it.
I can say from my schooling that we touched upon the AWI - I did A-Level History which focused on British Military History, the French Revolution and, rather weirdly, the Unification of Italy. It was good because the history of the British Military is basically the history of Britain as it involves all the nations/peoples we invaded/stole from and other nasty things. I had a rather intense course from just before the Napoleonic Wars onward, up until the Suez Canal Crisis (having done things like the Hundred Years War/Civil War in Secondary School), so we even touched upon the British perspective on the American Civil War, as well as military developments of weapons/naval vessels etc. Looking back it was probably the best academic thing I've done, even touching upon various tactics etc.
My main teacher was from Wales and didn't hold back on all the gak we did, even putting forward his belief that we sent the Lusitania into waters where we knew German U-boats were operating to drag America into the 1st World War (which isn't too far a stretch of the imagination given all said gak). As for the War of 1812, we looked at it briefly, though it wasn't in the exams if I recall. I vaguely remember learning about Lord Liverpool, the Corn Laws, Peterloo, the Embargo Act and things like that, but no real details about the war itself, just its causes and the fact we burned Washington up a bit...
Actually for my AS-level we even covered Vietnam
Come to think of it we went through a lot of stuff in a relatively short amount of time. I was lucky in that I had some great history teachers over the years I was at school, so for me history was never dull, going into stuff like the Cold War and JFK's assassination, the Great Fire of London and the Bubonic Plague and a notable demonstration of what a Pike would do to a charging horse. I guess I was lucky
Went to School in Both England and Scotland. And the way History was taught was very different. In England because I was in the NE we focused a lot on The Romans, Saxons, Normans and Vikings and how they shaped the culture, identity and language of the area through fair means and foul. Also the various invasions and warmongering carried out by the evil Scots
In Scotland History started and ended with the Battle of Bannockburn and the English are all evil, Scotland was a benevolent fairytail land etc. Scotland was never mentioned again until we did the Clydside Blitz (which my teacher also blamed on England). Then we did all American 20th century History for some reason, oh and Americans were all evil too :l
Had a member of the SNP for a History teacher go figure.
As for the War of Independence and 1812 there events that happen against the backdrop of a much larger decades long Global War with France and her Allies, so dont be surprised that they get little mention.
... and no Daily Mail or Daily Express quotes either.
Not exactly convincing evidence of the teaching profession being riddled with the 'far left' though are they.
If you are going to flatly dismiss comments by the Minister of Education, on the subject of education, without an attempt to give a reason, then its clear that you have nothing valid to say. Pity, but hardly suprising then that you resort to namecalling to shut down opposed opinion; its all too often the strategem of the dogmatised fanatic.
For the record its not 'tinfoil' to agree with the publically claimed point of view of senior officials in their own field of authority.
Very little. At primary and secondary level (elementary and middle school for you Yanks) we did typical things like the Romans, Tudors WWII and the like. At college (high school) we focussed on 20th Century China, the Vietnam War, post-war Britain and the Cold War. Neither myself, nor any of my friends have had any in-depth teaching on the pre-revolutionary US/UK relations.
Edit: I will add though that a we've had a few lecture in our "Geography of Empires" module last month on the development of colonial settlements in America/Canada, and the subsequent conflicts against other European nations as well as the colonists. While interesting, I would still prefer to learn about one of the periods I've studied before this.
I only did history classes up to the age of 14, but from what I saw, those who took it later didn't cover those periods either (there might have been some modules that you could take though).
From primary school through to secondary when I stopped, I remember War of the Roses + Tudors & early Stuarts (Shakespeare time period), Victorians (industrial revolution), Crusade era and WW2. There might have been some 100 years wars and Romans/Ancients too, though I get the feeling the latter was taught under 'classics' rather than History.
I was at school from the mid 80s until 1997. In primary school (age 5-11) I don't remember doing any history at all, although some of the reading comprehension lessons might have included "history texts" (and a lot of Egyptian, Norse and African /American* mythology, oddly enough. That might be what made me a gamer...). In secondary school, I only did history in 1st and 2nd year, then dropped it when picking my elective Standard Grades at age 13. All I remember of it was Scottish social history - crofting, perhaps a bit about the clearances and the rise of urban industrialisation in the 18th/19th century. I seem to remember geography covering much the same subject matter - which might explain why I dropped that, too.
Somewhere along the way, I've osmosed some knowledge of the American Revolution - not just from gaming sources, but I did have a couple of hefty children's encyclopedias when I was younger, so it might have been from them.
Personally, I was taught absolutely 0 American history, Which was a shame, because the first half of American history is also British history (and French, and German, and Spanish...)
History for me covered things like the Romans, Battle of Hastings, the Atlantic slave trade (Britain's part in it, but strangely...not including Britain/ the Royal Navy's role in ending it), the Blitz....all the typical, politically correct stuff.
I dropped the subject by Year 10 in favour of GCSE French...Which was a huge mistake, because my French teacher was a lazy sod who felt teaching a small class of 6 was beneath him; and the history teacher was a well loved, enthusiastic historian with a couple books to his name (hes since gone on to become a Town Counciler for my town).
In my experience 'common knowledge' tends to be based o anecdotal evidence.Either way it still doesn't mean that state schools are staff by the far left, although given how far to the right the country, or at least England, as a whole seems to have gone in recent years maybe moderate left leaning views are now class as far left. It also doesn't mean that the curriculum has a leftist agenda.
Pardon? I gave you something that could quite easily have been translated into the 'physical evidence', had you been so inclined to try. I repeat, go and examine the number of Unions that currently exist for teachers. Then actually conduct some investigation into the sorts of things they kick off over. I'll give you a clue, it's rarely as simple as wages/overtime/holiday like the vast majority of unions.
Simple facts like 'the English have fish and chip shops and pubs' are fairly common knowledge without needing to be 'anecdotal'.
I was a class of 2000, started off learning about prehistoric, roman, middle ages, Tudors, Victorian, WW1, WW2 and then modern history that covered Nam, Cold War and JFK.
Working conditions for teachers in the UK are horrendous. The teachers unions are pretty damn reasonable for putting up with all that gak, not to mention the utter disdain most in England have for their profession. Irish teachers would be in open revolt if they had to put up with that crap (though I think there's a happy medium between the two).
Having or being part of a union doesn't make you "far left". Schools in the UK are afflicted by the legacy of the New Labour bs lefty era when PC and wishy washy pop psychology crap was confused with being socially concious, but I know and knew plenty of teachers who were centrist or right wing in their views, and plenty who were moderate left. I knew about 1 teacher out of 300 or so who ever expressed anything I'd consider "far left" in his views.
I mean, come on. Far Left? Agitating for communism, are they?
Lame, limp wristed and overly worried about being PC, absolutely. Filled with red tape and pointless admin job posts that just create more admin, yes. Wishy washy and overly concerned with feelings and self esteem, god yes. Far left? No. Absolutely not.
The UK generally has a pretty awful excuse for a "left wing" for the reasons you recently articulated quite well in the "british people are wrong about everything" thread Ketara. But most teachers I've met and worked with are far more interested in getting through the day through the constant barrage of stress and getting their students through the education system with some qualifications.
When I did gcse history from the age of 14 to 16 a few years ago, I spent an entire year focusing upon things such as Indians, the gold rush, the railways and other colonial events (sadly I can't remember loads) but unfortunately apart from that, not much about america was taught
Da Boss wrote: Working conditions for teachers in the UK are horrendous. The teachers unions are pretty damn reasonable for putting up with all that gak, not to mention the utter disdain most in England have for their profession. Irish teachers would be in open revolt if they had to put up with that crap (though I think there's a happy medium between the two).
Having or being part of a union doesn't make you "far left". Schools in the UK are afflicted by the legacy of the New Labour bs lefty era when PC and wishy washy pop psychology crap was confused with being socially concious, but I know and knew plenty of teachers who were centrist or right wing in their views, and plenty who were moderate left. I knew about 1 teacher out of 300 or so who ever expressed anything I'd consider "far left" in his views.
I mean, come on. Far Left? Agitating for communism, are they?
Lame, limp wristed and overly worried about being PC, absolutely. Filled with red tape and pointless admin job posts that just create more admin, yes. Wishy washy and overly concerned with feelings and self esteem, god yes. Far left? No. Absolutely not.
The UK generally has a pretty awful excuse for a "left wing" for the reasons you recently articulated quite well in the "british people are wrong about everything" thread Ketara. But most teachers I've met and worked with are far more interested in getting through the day through the constant barrage of stress and getting their students through the education system with some qualifications.
Okay, fair enough, perhaps 'far left' is a bit extreme a phrase.
But I would contest that there is a heavily political left wing inculcation in the way teachers are currently taught to teach, in the makeup of the teaching Unions (which are quite well known for kicking off over things just because a Conservative Government proposed it), in the curriculum, and in the administrative/policy making side of things.
Now you may be right, and the average rank and file teacher doesn't care overly for politics or has any particularly obvious leftist leanings. I have no problem with accepting that, and having had one or two conversations with you on that one in real life, I'll bow to your experience.
But I would argue that in the institution of education itself, the organisations that make them it into an 'institution' very much do have a heavy political left wing throughout.
I sat my GCSE History 2 years ago in June, there was an exam on Northern Ireland and The Weimar Republic then an exam on The Cold War. So there was no mention of America in mine.
My school is over 1000 years old, America barely counts as history yet...
Well, keep in mind, American history doesn't start with the United States, or even the colonies. We have plenty of history just as old as Europe. For example, the Serpent Mound.
My school is over 1000 years old, America barely counts as history yet...
Well, keep in mind, American history doesn't start with the United States, or even the colonies. We have plenty of history just as old as Europe. For example, the Serpent Mound.
Indeed. I live a few miles from what was one of the largest cities in the world, in the 1200's.
Da Boss wrote: Working conditions for teachers in the UK are horrendous. The teachers unions are pretty damn reasonable for putting up with all that gak, not to mention the utter disdain most in England have for their profession. Irish teachers would be in open revolt if they had to put up with that crap (though I think there's a happy medium between the two).
Having or being part of a union doesn't make you "far left". Schools in the UK are afflicted by the legacy of the New Labour bs lefty era when PC and wishy washy pop psychology crap was confused with being socially concious, but I know and knew plenty of teachers who were centrist or right wing in their views, and plenty who were moderate left. I knew about 1 teacher out of 300 or so who ever expressed anything I'd consider "far left" in his views.
I mean, come on. Far Left? Agitating for communism, are they?
Lame, limp wristed and overly worried about being PC, absolutely. Filled with red tape and pointless admin job posts that just create more admin, yes. Wishy washy and overly concerned with feelings and self esteem, god yes. Far left? No. Absolutely not.
The UK generally has a pretty awful excuse for a "left wing" for the reasons you recently articulated quite well in the "british people are wrong about everything" thread Ketara. But most teachers I've met and worked with are far more interested in getting through the day through the constant barrage of stress and getting their students through the education system with some qualifications.
Okay, fair enough, perhaps 'far left' is a bit extreme a phrase.
But I would contest that there is a heavily political left wing inculcation in the way teachers are currently taught to teach, in the makeup of the teaching Unions (which are quite well known for kicking off over things just because a Conservative Government proposed it), in the curriculum, and in the administrative/policy making side of things.
Now you may be right, and the average rank and file teacher doesn't care overly for politics or has any particularly obvious leftist leanings. I have no problem with accepting that, and having had one or two conversations with you on that one in real life, I'll bow to your experience.
But I would argue that in the institution of education itself, the organisations that make them it into an 'institution' very much do have a heavy political left wing throughout.
I think this says more about your political views than teachers. I wouldn't say the teachers I know are left wing. What I would say is that the government, and specifically Gove, have a habit of interfering in teaching far to much and using it as a political football. If your job was changed on the whims of the latest minister or govenment every few years and the ills of society Put on you with little support you would probably become quite political. And no, I'm not a teacher, or married to one, nor am I member of a union nor have I ever been. I have never worked in a job where the only employer is essentially the government (teaching, nursing, police etc.). When your job is controlled and used as a political football I can see why people get so upset. That's not the same as being left wing.
My school is over 1000 years old, America barely counts as history yet...
Well, keep in mind, American history doesn't start with the United States, or even the colonies. We have plenty of history just as old as Europe. For example, the Serpent Mound.
Indeed. I live a few miles from what was one of the largest cities in the world, in the 1200's.
Yes, never did American History at school aside from Cowboys and Indians projects.
Most of what I know, I learned from reading Flashman books. Shame George Macdonald Fraser never got round to retelling the American Civil War from Flashman's point of view. It's mentioned in the books quite a lot with Flashman recounting that he did of course fight on both sides.
Orlanth wrote: Pity, but hardly suprising then that you resort to namecalling to shut down opposed opinion; its all too often the strategem of the dogmatised fanatic.
Please don't tell me you don't see the hypocricy in that sentence.
I think this says more about your political views than teachers.
Hardly. I have some fairly neutral political views, and I'm far from a Toryboy, so to speak.
However, my father is a teacher, and I spent a fair bit of time and research looking at going into secondary teacher training for history myself before settling on chasing postgrad academia. I spent time in schools observing, and looked into the structure of the curriculum, the reasoning behind it, and so on.
Combined with the fact that as someone who actually publishes history, I like to think that my opinion is generally relatively detached on analysing societal shifts, cultural factors, and political ideology. No doubt I have some inherent bias, but to claim that I'm just projecting my political beliefs onto my analysis is somewhat farfetched.
we studied a little american history, mainly a how the west was won cowboys and Indians sort of thing. We actually done a fair bit on native american tribes, learn't about the folks that ate each other in the Rockys and how the buffalo where almost wiped out. All in all though I think it was just an excuse to watch a bunch of westerns.
Yeah my history education was poor, watching Young Guns and Blackadder is about all I remember from it.
All this talk of US and UK history leaves me mighty jealous. Up until year 10 our history mostly consists of Australian colonial history, which is mighty boring indeed. So you start with reasons why the UK wanted a colony (get there before the Dutch, and have a new place to dump convicts after the US went and had an uprising and they couldn't be sent there anymore), and then you get told about the First Fleet sailing in to Botany Bay... but you don't get told the only interesting bit, where Captain Cook continued exploring, and was eventually eaten by Hawaiians. Then you get stories about the harsh conditions for the settlers, and the gold rush, and the handful of really minor skirmishes between police and various groups of disgruntled people. And then you do state history, and for WA that consists of being told that on Foundation Day the governor's wife cut down a tree.
By the schools here get on to interesting history, ie the history of other countries, like modern Russian and Chinese history, you're in year 11 and history is an elective that no-one takes because it was so boring before then. In my year 12 there was about 300 or 400 kids, and there was one history class with about 20 of us.
Unrelated to subject at hand, but something that has bothered me for many days.
I adore Newcastle Brown Ale, it is my #1 of all beers usually drink it over most others. however the literature on the back has me bothered....do you guys over there actually refer to it as "The Dog"
Broon's more likely than "the Dog" I'd think, at least here in Scotland. I think its mostly advertised as "Newcastle Brown Ale" though, that bit on the back's just the same nostalgia piece that loads of other drinks have on them.
filbert wrote: Never heard it called the dog but that is probably a Northern thing. It's most colloquially called Broon.
It's called pishwater here....or junior beer or Nukeeey Brown if we are feeling generous. I seem to remember its only 3 an a bit percent.
In my history lessons we learnt roman, industrial revolution for what seemed like forever then a little bit on the early 20th century without ever touching on WW1 or the sequel. I dropped it as soon as I could for Geography - it had a well renowned field trip to Yorkshire that involve staying in pubs.
We did learn some local relevant things too; The Peasants Revolt (finally put down in the Forest near here?), a Zepplin crashing at Meadow Rise and most relevant of all allot of the Pilgrim farther a came from this neck of the woods. I went to Mayflower School, drank in the Pilgrim and Mayflower pubs and the Town is twinned with Billerica in Massachusetts. So a bit of US history but not much.
I think I generally hear it referred as " Nukey-" ( sic) pronunciation wise.
I'm not really sure what over overseas brethren would make of the Newcastle area accent.... it is quite distinctive.
I like to imagine I dont have an accent but being from Kentucky, I am not so sure about all that. I know I dont sound like a hick or a bumpkin, but I can only imagine how it sounds when I say it compared to when one of Ya'll order it or someone from Newyork etc....
For me it was a specialist area I studied when doing history at higher level for the IB. Even at uni there wasn't much on US history as much as I can remember.
Snrub wrote: So out of interest how does Australia fare in British history classes. I'd imagine it's just the same as the Yanks but since we are the youngest child maybe we get some love and attention?
Hahahaha. Our learning of Australia basically boiled down to. "We raped and killed their native population, then we filled the land with slaves and prisoners."
Thats about all we learned about Australia as well...
Serious question, what do kids in the US learn about in history?
I wanted to point out that you burned down our capitol in 1814, but that seems a bit moot now...
kronk wrote:I learned that Prince Albert is sold in a can.
I was actually wrapping pallets of that tonight
I've been out of school for almost 10 years now, hopefully they changed it, but we really only learned about OUR history. Started with Columbus, and went on until the 1950's. My school had a class that taught us nothing but how our government works, since we ran out of historical things to discuss. Very rarely did we learn about "outside" events.
Serious question, what do kids in the US learn about in history?
Pre-Colonial era gets a few sentences or a couple brief days of comment. Not much talked about. Then you spend most of your time learning about the colonial era and Revolution, the forming of the US government, and some good old chest thumping about how we beat some barbaries and 'won' the war of 1812.
Depending on what the local area is like, the Antebellum period might be skipped completely and you go straight to the Civil War and Reconstruction.
Then you're in college where you actually get to start learning history instead of the same material you've been learning for the last 12 years repeated over and over again.
Serious question, what do kids in the US learn about in history?
Pre-Colonial era gets a few sentences or a couple brief days of comment. Not much talked about. Then you spend most of your time learning about the colonial era and Revolution, the forming of the US government, and some good old chest thumping about how we beat some barbaries and 'won' the war of 1812.
Depending on what the local area is like, the Antebellum period might be skipped completely and you go straight to the Civil War and Reconstruction.
Then you're in college where you actually get to start learning history instead of the same material you've been learning for the last 12 years repeated over and over again.
I don't remember much of what was taught in elementary school. I remember specifically that we learned about Spanish colonization, beyond Columbus. I remember some big European events such as the 100 Year War, Black Plague, Renaissance, covered in basics.
In High School we had two classes. US History 1 and US History 2. 1 covered everything up to the 20th Century, 2 covered everything after. In my Civics class we went back and examined a lot of stuff behind the building of the Constitution, to include British influences.
I never had a single class go past 1910 (and I went to a different school every year). Our teachers always said that everyone already knew about WWI and II so they didn't bother teaching it.
The test my first college history professor ran said otherwise (80% of the students couldn't explain how the US entered WWI or why Japan attacked pearl harbor).
LordofHats wrote: I never had a single class go past 1910 (and I went to a different school every year). Our teachers always said that everyone already knew about WWI and II so they didn't bother teaching it.
The test my first college history professor ran said otherwise (80% of the students couldn't explain how the US entered WWI or why Japan attacked pearl harbor).
I went through two schools in Highschool, they both covered it that way. Maybe it's a Michigan thing. I had maybe 8 different elementary schools, so it's damn near impossible for me to remember specifics. Especially when I learned what, where.
LordofHats wrote: and some good old chest thumping about how we beat some barbaries and 'won' the war of 1812.
I think the War of 1812 is fascinating. I've mentioned it on Dakka before, but the funniest thing about it is that every side says that they won, and each for a different reason.
The Canadians say that they won because they repelled the US invasion of Canada.
The British say they won because they attacked Washington and burnt the White House.
The Americans say they won because they threw back a second British invasion, put a stop to British impressment of American sailors, and showed the world they could tangle with a 1st-rate European military power and come out alright.
I did up to GCSE level history and never learnt anything about the american revolution or the american civil war. I'm fairly sure we did something about Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement at some point in school though.
Corpsesarefun wrote: I did up to GCSE level history and never learnt anything about the american revolution or the american civil war. I'm fairly sure we did something about Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement at some point in school though.
Those far left teachers pushing their ideologies onto everyone , when will they stop brainwashing the children??
I did ancient and modern history in school , I think I learned about America in regard to ww1, ww2, the depression , a teeny bit on suffragettes and the slave trade , though slave trade should have probably be renamed the Wilberforce love in.
Best thing about school history is continuing your self education in history and finding some of what you learned from school history book is directly contradicted by several sources, enough to be considered misleading or fallacious.
School history , I miss you especially the general hilarity of learning about Egyptian mastabahs and the idiot Italians cheering every time Rome was mentioned. There was a lot of cheering in ancient history.
LordofHats wrote: and some good old chest thumping about how we beat some barbaries and 'won' the war of 1812.
I think the War of 1812 is fascinating. I've mentioned it on Dakka before, but the funniest thing about it is that every side says that they won, and each for a different reason.
The Canadians say that they won because they repelled the US invasion of Canada.
The British say they won because they attacked Washington and burnt the White House.
The Americans say they won because they threw back a second British invasion, put a stop to British impressment of American sailors, and showed the world they could tangle with a 1st-rate European military power and come out alright.
Well Britain has a good claim to being the victor. The War was about one thing the US trying to conqueror British North America, impressment ended 2 weeks before the conflict began. War ended with the US blockaded its economy trashed and Britain in possession of huge swathes of US territory. The war was started by the US and Britain dictated the terms that ended it re-establishing the status que cementing the future of what would become Canada as separate entity to the USA.
Britain never had any intention of re-conquering the 13 colonies, it was seen as too big to be possible. This period is the dawn of the golden age of the Empire there was simply no need to.
The big losers were the Native Americans, Britain had plans to create a Native buffer state between them and the USA. Admittedly this played into the US motivations for starting the war the natives weren’t particularly popular at the time.
It did have a huge impact on the US military creating a more professional full time Army, rather that relying on Militia to make up most of the numbers. And gave them some big victory’s after the war had actually ended, to help lessen the wars failures.
It may be worth noting that in 1812 Britain was 9 years into the French Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars, and didn't want a prolonged fight with the USA to distract it from other theatres of operations.
As the above to point out, Britain won the war. I know everyone says they won, but Britain is the one who really won. We got off the hook for that because we were lucky that Britain had bigger fish to fry, and the US was still a very small fish.
But really what I mean is that in my history classes, it always came up. The US won the War of 1812 (by getting or ass handed to us and the capital burned to the ground) blah blah blah. IMO the conflicts with the Barbary States was much bigger in asserting the US' ability to enforce its own soverignty. It's not like the rest of Europe had the balls to tell the Barbary pirates where they could shove it and then actually went over and did a mediocre, but effective, job of shoving it for them.
The War of 1812 was an odd event. Things went exactly opposite of what should have happened.
1) It was widely predicted that Canada would fall quickly to the US army, but poor leadership saw that be a disaster.
2) Nobody had any delusions about beating the Royal Navy, but instead the Brits got roflstomped. Largely due to US Frigates being far superior one on one than British counterparts plus the use of hit-and-run tactics. US frigates were larger and carried 56-60 guns while British Frigates rarely had more than 38. It got to the point where standing orders were to not engage US frigates unless you had at least a 2:1 advantage.
Beating the Royal navy was a huge deal, especially at the time. True, Britain had bigger fish to fry. But it was still a great PR and morale victory. A modern equivalent would be something like Argentina managing to successfully beat off the modern US navy with very few losses.
The Barbary States conflict was probably more important from a material gain standpoint but you can't undersell what it meant to give the Royal Navy a good licking.
Internationally, "Don't mess with the US, they beat the Royal Navy" means a lot more than "Don't mess with the US, they took on the Barbary Pirates"
Orlanth wrote: Pity, but hardly suprising then that you resort to namecalling to shut down opposed opinion; its all too often the strategem of the dogmatised fanatic.
Please don't tell me you don't see the hypocricy in that sentence.
It is not hypocritical at all. First comes the attempt to drown out opinion with accusation, then comes the pointing out that doing so points a stronger finger at the accuser than the accused.
War of the Pacific. Few wars are fought by lone states. China, Britain, and Australia were there too, but it's pretty hard to argue America wasn't the driving force behind the victory. Talking about whose military has the biggest junk in terms of who helped who is kind of pointless.
For GCSE history we did various medieval bits and bobs, then onto 'naam, the slave trade and WW1. The main part of our GCSEs were History of Medicine (which was global) and Hitler's germany.
In the A-Levels I'm doing there's Civil Rights Movement, Stalin's Russia and China through the ages.
I would also say that teachers being left wing isn't inherently a bad thing, considering the gak they put up with, from both students and the Govt.
welshhoppo wrote: When it comes to warfare, America has never won a war on its own.
This is what I've been told, so if anyone can think of one, then let me know.
This has what to do with the price of cheese in venice?
Well if Venice didn't have to fork out for warfare, the cheese might well be cheaper.
And I wouldn't really class the War in the Pacific as being a war. It's more of a case of America vs Japan. So you had China and Russia helping out at the same time.
welshhoppo wrote: When it comes to warfare, America has never won a war on its own.
This is what I've been told, so if anyone can think of one, then let me know.
This has what to do with the price of cheese in venice?
Well if Venice didn't have to fork out for warfare, the cheese might well be cheaper.
And I wouldn't really class the War in the Pacific as being a war. It's more of a case of America vs Japan. So you had China and Russia helping out at the same time.
welshhoppo wrote: and I wouldn't really class the War in the Pacific as being a war.
Say whut?
Lots of people died man, like fighting each other. And we dropped fething nukes on their heads!
War it definitely was.
Well I'd say its more of a theatre of war rather than being an actually fully fledged war. Japan had (some) help from the Nazis and America had (some) help from the Allies.
djones520 wrote: It was a war entirely within itself. Just because were were fighting another war at the same time in Europe doesn't change that.
But it wasn't about America. Japan was at war with the Chinese before WWII even began. Once the US stopped supplying them with oil, they needed to attack America in order to get a good supply from the Pacific. The Pacific Theatre might seem to be a singular event, but it was closely entwined with the rest of World War Two.
The pacific and European conflicts were actually very different too.
Europe was a land based conflict with a small sea component while the Pacific war was largely navel(with a huge air component) and amphibious warfare.
The wars also ended separately.
The European Theatre also had a large amount of naval and air warfare. The Battle for the Atlantic involved hundreds of thousands of people and millions of tonnes of vessels were sunk. We horribly destroyed several of Germany's cities (often for no good reason, something that I believe we should be punished for, Dresden didn't deserve what it got.) And the largest amphibious operation in World War Two happened in France.
By the way, don't think that I'm trying to downplay the significance of the Pacific War. It was a horrible affair that should never have happened and happened because of issues on both sides of the conflict. But I don't think it is independent enough to count it as a separate conflict to the rest of World War Two. All the countries involved in one were involved in the other, some took a more physical method, others shared information. But it was all one war, if Germany had not invaded Russia Japan may never have attacked America. If America wasn't attacked, Germany might not have declared war on America. If the Japanese hadn't captured Singapore so early, we might have helped in the larger battles of that theatre. War is a bloody tangled mess, and World War Two is one of the worst ones ever.
Japan would have eventually attacked America even if the Nazis never happened. Japan was on an expansionist streak for a while, they only hooked up with the Germans because of common foes.
America was attacked because we were the only real threat to the Japanese expansion in the pacific. At best the conflict would have been delayed but it would have happened eventually.
Grey Templar wrote: And the Spanish-American war. We got the Philippines out of that.
We beat the Japanese basically by ourselves. There was little involvement of significance from the other allied powers.
With the Spanish-American War you had help from the Cubans and the Philippines themselves. Then when you have the Philippine-American war you have help from the rebels.
California and Texas were ceded to the US as part of the peace terms of that war.
Believe me, the US could have gotten a lot more land out of it. The Mexican army was in shambles, we could have easily taken the whole country if we had really wanted to. The reason we didn't was because there was division over the war back in the states so there was compromise.
Grey Templar wrote: And the Spanish-American war. We got the Philippines out of that.
We beat the Japanese basically by ourselves. There was little involvement of significance from the other allied powers.
With the Spanish-American War you had help from the Cubans and the Philippines themselves. Then when you have the Philippine-American war you have help from the rebels.
War is a complex issue.
So any kind of help at all, even if was really just token, disqualifies us as doing it by ourselves?
We horribly destroyed several of Germany's cities (often for no good reason, something that I believe we should be punished for, Dresden didn't deserve what it got.)
I hate this kind of "Sins of the father" thinking. Why should 21st Century Britain be held accountable for crimes We did not commit? That were committed before many of us were even born? I am no more liable for Dresden than a 22 year old German is for the Holocaust.
Things we as a country should be held accountable and "punished" for are things that were committed in our lifetime, by leaders we elected (and in some cases, are even still in office today). Iraq. Afghanistan. Our interference in Libya and Syria. Drone strikes in Pakistan.
Not things which we today rightly abhore and regard to be crimes, that happened decades (Dresden) or even centuries (Slavery, British Empire, Colonialism) ago by people who are long dead.
We horribly destroyed several of Germany's cities (often for no good reason, something that I believe we should be punished for, Dresden didn't deserve what it got.)
I hate this kind of "Sins of the father" thinking. Why should 21st Century Britain be held accountable for crimes We did not commit? That were committed before many of us were even born? I am no more liable for Dresden than a 22 year old German is for the Holocaust.
Things we as a country should be held accountable and "punished" for are things that were committed in our lifetime, by leaders we elected (and in some cases, are even still in office today). Iraq. Afghanistan. Our interference in Libya and Syria. Drone strikes in Pakistan.
Not things that happened decades (Dresden) or even centuries (Slavery, British Empire, Colonialism) ago by people who are long dead.
Ah it comes from being a Law student. We punished the Germans for what they did, and we killed the only people who could actually bring any of them to justice.
But Britain is a dark country. We have one of the most bloodiest histories of any country.
But Britain is a dark country. We have one of the most bloodiest histories of any country.
We don't, not really. German soil has seen so much blood I'm suprised its managed to dry out and there are large parts of the world who has seen massacres and genocides that far surpase anything seen on English or Scottish soil.
But Britain is a dark country. We have one of the most bloodiest histories of any country.
We don't, not really. German soil has seen so much blood I'm suprised its managed to dry out and there are large parts of the world who has seen massacres and genocides that far surpase anything seen on English or Scottish soil.
I'm pretty sure that the Germans did not kill 1.8 billion Indians.
I did pick up that your post in that other thread was about the revolutionary war, though.
