Short answer. It isn't.
What about a medium answer?
I don't know if it appears in A levels, but certainly not up until GCSEs (at least when I took them).
The reason simply being that there are much more important chapters in British history. We've got 2000 years of it recorded, so the American Revolution really isn't much in the grand scheme of things.
IIRC, and interpret history correctly, France had a lot to do with us gaining our independence... as well as some poor military decisions by the British...
And Spain. They pretty much financed it.
I figured this question was bound to creata But For Me It Was Tuesday moment.
you, I'd been clean for hours.We should also do good to remember that, at that time, France, Spain, and Britain were competitors, if not enemies, so the reasons for the other Powers help during the Revolution were not entirely unselfish.
Their were battles of the American revolution that were fought in the Philippines. It was something of a global conflict.
Yeah... losing the States is nothing compared to the rest of the losses ... like Australia, India/Pakistan/Afghanistan, and parts of the Middle East.
I would say losing the States only seemed like a small blow considering what else they had at the time, if I've got my history in the right order.
But, really, wasn't America the start of it? The first part of the empire to break away... just saying.
No, the British Empire grew to a massive size after the American Revolution, hence the expression: "The sun never sets on the British Empire". This is still true, but only because Britain has an embassy in many countries.
I'm throwing my money in for propaganda..."We let those Yanks have that silly country.."
'Tis we Americans that teach about the Revolution through the rosy-lens of propaganda. Higher taxes for the dirt farmer and perpetuation of slavery far longer than would have been the case under the Empire all for independence that would in all likelihood have come in due time without bloodshed. Every Canadian I have ever met seems to pretty much enjoy the same liberties as I.
Background
British Policy after 1763
The Revenue Act 1764
The Stamp Act 1765
Repeal of the Stamp Act 1766
The Townshend Duties 1767
Western Frontier Problems
Growth of Colonial Opposition after 1770
The Boston 'Tea Party' and its results
The Philadelphia Continental Congress 1774
British Attitude To Crisis
Unsucessful attempts at conciliation
Declaration of Independence 1776
Reasons for Great Britain's Defeat
Howes Operations 1775-7
Clinton and Corwallis in the SOuth
Surrender at Yorktown 1781
Treaty of Versailles 1783
ITs pretty extensive but like History in the USA doesnt go into the terrorism perpetrated by both sides against the middle. My family farm was burned to the ground because we wouldnt supply Washington with agricultural support of his army of Terrorists. We were forced off a square mile of Land located in upstate NewYork and moved north to Canada.
Whats 230 years compound interest on a square mile of upstate NewYork?
Whats 230 years compound interest on a square mile of upstate NewYork?
I think it's a bad case of small pox and a 60 mile forced march in sub-zero weather.
Also, they were freedom fighters, because they won. Washington's troops would only be terrorist if we still saluted the Union Jack around here.
:P
).My bro did some stuff on America in his A-levels/degree, and he always reffers to the revolutionaries as terrorists.
We were forced off a square mile of Land located in upstate NewYork and moved north to Canada.
I don't know. Ask the natives, I'm sure they've considered the question before.
I don't know. Ask the natives, I'm sure they've considered the question before.
Yeah. I think it comes out to one bead or something like that. Wait. Only a square mile, eh? Probably something like 1/1000 of a bead ...
Damn. The people that stole this nation from those that lived here first were some Class A douche bags. For reals, yo. I'm so glad my families didn't come over until most of the damage was already done.
Damn. The people that stole this nation from those that lived here first were some Class A douche bags. For reals, yo. I'm so glad my families didn't come over until most of the damage was already done.
So sometime after the end of the Great Expansion Westward? Very late 19th century, early 20th century?
On a side note, welcome back Hater.
:}
on a side note, being a British man myself, i find some previous comments quite hilarious and enlightening
-Kraik
Eh, the only difference rebels or terrorist, conquerer or liberator, is the perspective.
Smart man.
Eh, the only difference rebels or terrorist, conquerer or liberator, is the perspective.
Having a neutral perspective to both the American revolution and the War of Terrorism, I'd have to say they're usually both.
EscherEnigma: Eh, the only difference rebels or terrorist, conquerer or liberator, is the perspective.
Rules of Engagement for one. Typical POW's are entitled to the niceties of food & shelter, providing lawful surrender and/or capture. That is, regular units hosted by a sovereign nation that operate under a chain of command. Geneva Convention is pretty telling despite the many liberties taken w/ it. Not even gonna' mention Gitmo...
"Terrorists" are stateless antagonists that operate in a martial capacity. From there, the ideology is what sets them apart. Full blown military units don't typically blow up hotels & nightclubs to make a political statement. They tend to go to the source, the political body in question, who, in turn, is supposed to mount their own defense/offense w/ their own military assets. Terrorists operate outside the martial boundaries laid forth by agreeing countries, most notably, the UN.
Thusly, they are not entitled to the privledges that agreeing nations and their units receive upon engaging outside the accepted norms of combat.
Civilians are allegedly off limits
. Not to many terrorist outfits. Now, this gets blurred all the time, I know, but when dealing w/ the taking of human life, set parameters must be met, otherwise, it's total chaos. And war is chaotic enough. So, we invoke nuclear non-proliferation agreements, no-fly zones, no fire on red cross, etc."Liberators" can act under a military, civilian, or paramilitary aegis. This is more open-ended than others. Normandy's D-Day was the beginning of the liberation of France. Mujahadein rebels in Afghanistan in the 80's, same thing. But see how a handful of years has made all the difference to 1 but not the other.
I think a better term to critique would be "partisans". That's essentially what colonial militia was during the War of Independence. Normal civlians really, irregular infantry (mostly) fending off regular military assets (Brit army & navy) and mercenaries (Hessians mostly), not necessarilly terrorists randomly killing civilian tories and inspiring fear...though I suspect a great many did to compromise morale.
Tea Party and the like, yeah, I guess those would be construed as terrorist actions, hitting them in the wallet, not the front lines. Of course, Brits employing Indians to raid frontier settlements to draw off milita from the battlefields to defend their civilian homesteads, same thing. Reciprocity?
You know that Fallout quip, "War never changes...", what total BS. Life and death, sure, but the politics and mechanics, let alone the definitions and standards seem to change faster than we can keep up.
but there is one thing you're forgetting, "history is written by the winners" and i think i would count America the "winners" in this one by gaining their independence so imagine how much of history is propaganda written by the US when they finally 'liberated' themselves from the British isles? and considering it's not even taught over here....
-Kraik
Rules of Engagement for one. Typical POW's are entitled to the niceties of food & shelter, providing lawful surrender and/or capture. That is, regular units hosted by a sovereign nation that operate under a chain of command. Geneva Convention is pretty telling despite the many liberties taken w/ it. Not even gonna' mention Gitmo...
Could we please stop with the “haha they're not fortunate enough to be sponsored by a government so it's totally fair to use torture and whatever else we want against them”-crap? Somewhere along the line, some (like me) will disagree, then we enter political territory, and this thread will be locked.
For a long time, Vietnam was a topic that wasn't dealt with with too many specifics over here. It's quite common for losses to be glossed over when taught to younger generations. The Revolution was most assuredly a loss for the Brits. I am not surprised a nation that's nearly as prideful in its heritage as my own would not find it terribly important to teach children about one of its losses. The victor does write history. The loser, however, doesn't always teach it.
The question is, what reason do the Brits have for teaching about the American revolution?
"1613, English settlers create Jamestown, our first succesful settlement in America. And then, in 1917, the Americans joined World War I on our side."
"Wait, shouldn't something have happened in-between?"
"Not important. Moving along!"
... ok, so maybe that's more amusing in my head then anywhere else.
...but there is one thing you're forgetting, "history is written by the winners"
Not necessarilly, especially in this day & age, aka The Telecommunications Age. Everything is documented, every ego is plugged into every other ego, cell phones, e-mail, satellite recon, etc. Such a great abundance of communication and exchange of info has changed everything.
Even in total media blackouts like the recent Iranian election, Twitter comes slithering in to funnel info out that wasn't meant to be shared (per the state anyway). F'ing Twitter, right? Who saw that coming?
To give you a better bearing, local partisans (perhaps terrorists) in Mogadishu were phoning in supply drops and our troop positions on American made phones during the Somali campaign, '93 or so. Al'Quaida & Iraqi insurgency, filming the Hell out of everything they can, even counter-productive stuff like the beheading of Nick Burg (civilian contractor '04), etc.
Even in the colonial eras, specifically our independence, there's enough accounts from the French, Germans, Brits, and us to get a pretty clear measure of what actually went down.
It simply takes a discriminating eye, that's the real defining moment. The consumer of said info. If you take anything @ face value that is touched upon by many 3rd parties, particularly, a complex affair like a war, then in that simple face value dynamic of breaking it down into it's simplest of terms for easier truths, "winners" and "losers", then that's what you get. A simple message devoid of more complex truths. Some just don't want to be challenged.
That's how most media, even art (like pop music) is delivered. Something easilly consumable for a large x-section. Stream-lined, edited, etc. Simple, no frills. Other aspects are construed as distasteful and yeah, I'll concede a lot of ugliness gets whitewashed and revisionism takes place.
...and i think i would count America the "winners" in this one by gaining their independence
We won our independence (w/ a lot of help though), yes, but we weren't liberators so much as revolting. Not that it matters. A rose by any other name, bla bla bla...
...so imagine how much of history is propaganda written by the US when they finally 'liberated' themselves from the British isles? and considering it's not even taught over here....
Well, I can imagine, or I can actually do the digging myself. I'm not sure there is a Hell of a lot of propaganda to begin with safe for combat atrocities. Fighting guerilla style vs. Napoleonic, unfair quartering of soldiers, Stamp, Tea, Sugar Acts, French military support, etc. It's out there, you just have to have an appetite to go get it, not take what's given is all I guess. I'd say there's more propaganda from the War of 1812 (which me pretty much lost) than the War of Independence.
I guess, I'm not sure what cases of propaganda vs. truth there were during our independence. Anyone got any examples, UK or US? Don't hold back.
Not taught doesn't mean propaganda either. Like DELETE vs. EDIT. I am terribly curious to see their take on it though.
Exhibit 'A':
Zombie_Babies: For a long time, Vietnam was a topic that wasn't dealt with with too many specifics over here.
You largely just get the footnotes in high school history, yeah, not much else. Not so much overt lies, just failing to cite things like Mei Lei, covert ops in Cambodia, G.I. drug addiction, etc. A brief nod to it in some ways, but you'll get a better telling from the history channel than your school teacher at times.
It's quite common for losses to be glossed over when taught to younger generations.
We killed over a million NVA, they got about 58k of us...and we still "lost". However, Cincy Enquierer here, during WWII, stated we killed the entire population of Germany 3X's over during their "war coverage". Accurate?
Well, I suppose if you're completionist it would help.
"1613, English settlers create Jamestown, our first succesful settlement in America. And then, in 1917, the Americans joined World War I on our side."
"Wait, shouldn't something have happened in-between?"
Lots of things happened, in Britain. But the loss of America didn't seem to have had a significant effect on Britain, and as such, is not terribly relevant for British history.
Could we please stop with the “haha they're not fortunate enough to be sponsored by a government so it's totally fair to use torture and whatever else we want against them”-crap?
I think you want Jargon & Rhetoric 101 down the hall...
No one is positing "ha ha, underprivledged, etc". There are simple truths to warfare and the taking of human lives no matter how much you wish to ignore them and deviate a martial agenda into a political one. No one, especially me, is calling for unlawful detainment, waterboarding, or any of that misma that's all the rage now. I'm trafficing in words, notable definitions of engagement in its many faces, not political posturing, heresay, and conjecture.
Furthermore, who said "fair to use torture and whatever else" on here? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? *crickets*
QUOTE cuts both ways, you got a '1' & fumbled. Not cool. This only serves to inflame an otherwise interesting thread, facilitate a lock, and upset ppl.
Somewhere along the line, some (like me) will disagree, then we enter political territory, and this thread will be locked.
That's fine, Hell, we're (I am anyway) counting on that to get good debate. Drives us forward, keeps the ball rolling. What you have said initially, isn't though, as you are now emotionally invested, projecting, have taken words out of context, re-edited and put them in your own, and re-injected that as gospel. The great irony is that we're talking about propaganda...text book example perhaps?
Seriously, why go there?
The question is, what reason do the Brits have for teaching about the American revolution?
IDK. Learning from one's mistakes, teaching humility, never underestimate homefield advantage, never fight a 2 front war? There's a few on here, why don't you ask them?
...loss of America didn't seem to have had a significant effect on Britain, and as such, is not terribly relevant for British history.
Wasn't there a huge amount of tax revenue being generated by that huge amount of land and the ppl therein? The colonies were thriving w/ mercantile opportunities givne all the resources. I'm sure that stung.
The question is, what reason do the Brits have for teaching about the American revolution?
Well, like it or not, it was a major historical event. For one thing, if it never happened the Europeans wouldn't have anyone to laugh at or blame for all sorts of stuff. :P (Yes, that was a bad joke and nothing more. Moving on ...) Seriously though, take a look at what America became once it won its independence. A juggernaut in world politics, a military giant and much, much more. A huge part of why that happened is the massive amount of resources the country has at its disposal. Resources formerly under the jurisdiction of the British Empire. If the US remained a territory this world would look very, very different because Britain would have been at the helm of much of what the US did. In some cases, that may have meant that certain things didn't happen as well.
If that sounds like a weak example, I give you WWII. Japan attacked China for resources. Hitler looked to Russia for oil. Resources drive the world. Those that have them become major players. Those that do not, don't. Look at the US today. We need oil and are therefore beholden to countries that we are in many ways ideologically opposed to. Oh, they hate us, too. Hell, we're a defacto military force for all sorts of countries that we buy oil from. If Britain had held onto what the US could produce, it would have likely become even stronger than the US was at its peak.
The American Revolution is important to everyone because it was a revolution that created a superpower. I feel that all major world players that have gone through something of that magnitude should be taught about - and that, of course, would mean modifying typical US courses, too. Really, every revolution is important and should be taught to every generation. Some were horrible bloody messes that left things worse than before. Others were what was actually needed. Regardless, revolution is one of the most important things a person can ever learn about. You never know when you'll need one yourself, after all.
Face it, time is a premium resource in education and schools teach the stuff that they feel is most relevant and important, which is not necessarily what IS the most relevant and important.
I still feel that the American Revolution is important enough to be taught in detail at schools in Britain (and elsewhere) but understand why it is not. I also feel that there are many events that are not taught in enough detail to students in the US but understand why it is so.
Well to be fair, we don't exactly get taught a lot of history about how Mexico, Canada, or any part of South America got it's independence. We skip right over many important events in European history. And really, does Africa ever get any sort of credit in American high school education? What bout all of asia? My high school history classes picked up with Asia about when England started forcing Opium on China and intimidated Japan into letting their ships in. It's not like we don't gloss over or out-right ignore important events in the rest of the world. I mean really... how much coverage did your high school give to the rize of Nazism or the downfall of the Russian Czars? Pretty important events, but covered very briefly at mine. Lumped together in a chapter that said "events leading to WWII". Meanwhile we spent an entire year looking at early colonial history.
Face it, time is a premium resource in education and schools teach the stuff that they feel is most relevant and important, which is not necessarily what IS the most relevant and important.
Mexico, Canada, and South America didn't win their independence from us. The American Revolution is an important part of British History. Beyond that it's one of the most important events in World History. You're comparing apples and oranges.
The American Revolution is important to everyone because it was a revolution that created a superpower.
So what you're actually saying is that America is so important that everyone should learn American history. Fair enough, but what's that got to do with the Brits specifically? When they lost America, it wasn't a major event, compared to so much else. In fact, it was more of a side-effect of their war with France. If the American revolution spelled the beginning of the end for the British empire, it might have been more relevant, but it didn't. They gained and lost many, many colonies after that. When America emerged more than a century later as superpower, it became relevant. But not any more so than if it had been a former French or Spanish colony. We all learn about the events that shaped our nation, and while I'm sure the American revolution shaped the US, it didn't shape Britain.
Also, what about 30 years ago, when Russia was up there with you? Should we all learn Russian history? And now that China is emerging as a major player in world politics, it might be relevant to ask what you learn about Chinese history. Or the history of India. The European Union is gaining importance too (though not anywhere near as much as it could if the countries could agree), but from what I know of Americans, your knowledge of our history is even less than our knowledge of yours.
And I also think you underestimate how much history there is to teach in old countries. I was quite shocked over how much the locals (I was in Montana, Idaho, and Washington state) made out of the Lewis and Clark expedition. In Denmark, something similar could risk only getting a footnote, or maybe a few pages, in a history book, but up there, it was like the biggest thing that ever happened.
My gymnasium (has nothing to do with gym, it's like high school on a slightly higher level) education in history focussed on Ancient Greece and Rome because so much of our cultural heritage comes from those cultures, and their ideas helped shape the world for over a millennia. The French revolution because of its political significance, and because so many modern ideas were conceived there. The loss of Slesvig-Holsten (colliding with Denmark becoming a democracy), because of how significant that period is for our country, and how much it affected the feelings of Danish nationality. WW2, because its helped shape Europe (and many other places in the world) as we know it, still has a great cultural significance, and is remembered by many people alive today. And finally, immigration in the 60s and 70s, because that's a major theme in current Danish politics. I also think we had something about the British empire, but I was absent for a period, so I'm not sure.
And I can't think of a single one of those subjects I find less relevant than the American revolution. They all affected current day Denmark (and often, the world) much more than the American revolution. America was mentioned in regards to WW2, because that was when it started to have a real influence, but there's already enough to learn about nations and events that had an influence when they happened – learning about the history of every country that later became important is second priority, and that goes for all countries.
Face it, time is a premium resource in education and schools teach the stuff that they feel is most relevant and important, which is not necessarily what IS the most relevant and important.
+1
Ah...There you have it. Not even the teachers really get a say in the curriculum they want/need to teach, often, the voice of reason. Go figure the guy/gal that is technically most qualified for subject 'x' has to yield to a panel, school board, PTA, and so forth that might have no credentials in it at all.
My bro is a history teacher. God, you should'a seen him, so happy, young and idealistic, poppin' fresh out of grad school, ready to dive in....
Gets in, then, "it" begins. Can't stay past 7 to grade papers despite all your books, resources, teachers editions etc being there cuz' it might look bad w/ kids after school (nevermind all the other potential witnesses in the building). Can't take a kid's cell during class cuz' it's "disrespectful" (nevermind that they use them to cheat their asses off) even though it's returned later. Weeks and weeks on the Emancipation Proclamation, but Lincoln and the rest of the Union is a footnote, no major battles covered, no Reconstruction, etc (deemed "unimportant"). Requests for "Schnidler's List", quality PBS docs, "Ken Burns: The War", all that during WWII, denied so they could simply agree on fascism = bad and get a crash course in different govt.
Man I hate to see good men and women have to tap dance for a bunch of idiots. Anything to placate even the most retarded of special interests. Anything to CYA...education comes 2nd. Almost incidental really. What happened to the formality of teaching, actually preparing kids for the future? He's got 18 yr olds that can't write a decent paper much less know the difference between "you" and "you're", "there", "their'", and "they're", etc. They can navigate the web like champs, text at warp speed, and do a million things that they don't really need to do, but they have no idea who the Hell Paul Revere was, and G. Washington is just some "old dude on the money".
Mexico, Canada, and South America didn't win their independence from us. The American Revolution is an important part of British History. Beyond that it's one of the most important events in World History. You're comparing apples and oranges.
I find it funny that you're saying it's an important part of British history when the Brits are all saying "Eh, it was a thing that happened, but there were more important things going on."
When they lost America, it wasn't a major event, compared to so much else. In fact, it was more of a side-effect of their war with France.
Calling it a side-effect is rewriting history. At the time America was Britain's most important colonies. India emerged later, but at the time America was a huge source of raw materials that the Brits ended up having to purchase later (not to mention that cotton became a big part of their economy in the 19th century, something they could have got on the cheap if they had won).
Also, what about 30 years ago, when Russia was up there with you? Should we all learn Russian history?
The history of the Soviet Union from 1918 on was a big part of the lesson plan when I was in school.
And now that China is emerging as a major player in world politics, it might be relevant to ask what you learn about Chinese history.
The history of communist China was also important when I was in school. I imagine it is more-so now.
Or the history of India. The European Union is gaining importance too (though not anywhere near as much as it could if the countries could agree), but from what I know of Americans, your knowledge of our history is even less than our knowledge of yours.
India isn't a major player on the same level as the previous nations you've mentioned, so no their history isn't as important as American history. But I certainly hope it's studied in Briton considering it IS a major part of British history.
Of course we know less of your history than ours, we're the big dog. Just as Roman history is more well known than Etruscan. The big, powerful, and influential cultures will always be better known. That's just the way it is. I always find it ridiculous that people sneer about how Americans don't know the history of every country in the world in depth. The argument that they know our history is not a valid argument.
And I also think you underestimate how much history there is to teach in old countries. I was quite shocked over how much the locals (I was in Montana, Idaho, and Washington state) made out of the Lewis and Clark expedition. In Denmark, something similar could risk only getting a footnote, or maybe a few pages, in a history book, but up there, it was like the biggest thing that ever happened.
The Lewis and Clark Expedition was maybe a paragraph in my textbooks. You vastly overestimate how important we feel it was. If anything it's under-appreciated here as it really was a major event in American history. It layed the groundwork for US expansion to the Pacific. People forget that many countries were competing at the time for the Northwest (even the Russians were players) and simply going there gives a country points when trying to lay claim. It certainly isn't something that I would expect most non-Americans to even hear about though, it isn't a major world event.
My gymnasium (has nothing to do with gym, it's like high school on a slightly higher level) education in history focussed on Ancient Greece and Rome because so much of our cultural heritage comes from those cultures, and their ideas helped shape the world for over a millennia. The French revolution because of its political significance, and because so many modern ideas were conceived there. The loss of Slesvig-Holsten (colliding with Denmark becoming a democracy), because of how significant that period is for our country, and how much it affected the feelings of Danish nationality. WW2, because its helped shape Europe (and many other places in the world) as we know it, still has a great cultural significance, and is remembered by many people alive today. And finally, immigration in the 60s and 70s, because that's a major theme in current Danish politics. I also think we had something about the British empire, but I was absent for a period, so I'm not sure.
I would think the Norse would be a big part of your education as well, but meh.
And I can't think of a single one of those subjects I find less relevant than the American revolution. They all affected current day Denmark (and often, the world) much more than the American revolution. America was mentioned in regards to WW2, because that was when it started to have a real influence, but there's already enough to learn about nations and events that had an influence when they happened – learning about the history of every country that later became important is second priority, and that goes for all countries.
You also forget that if it wasn't for the American Revolution the French Revolution never would have happened. Getting involved in the revolution was a major blunder by the French. Beyond even the Americas setting an example of Democracy being a viable form of government, there was a large amount of influence between American and French thinkers that laid the groundwork for the French Revolution. Treating Benjamin Franklin like a great philosopher and inviting Thomas Paine to the country don't go a long way towards convincing a population that they need a king.
In Danish schools I wouldn't expect The American Revolution to be all that important, but it certainly is to Brittish history. It just amazes me that it's not seen as such. I'd bring up a comparable event in American history that's ignored here, but I can't think of one. Many smaller, a couple bigger, but nothing that really compares.
I find it funny that you're saying it's an important part of British history when the Brits are all saying "Eh, it was a thing that happened, but there were more important things going on."
I find it amazing myself. It flat out is a big event in British history. Heck, we spent an entire week on Vietnam and it was nowhere near as important to American history as the Revolution was to British.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/rebels_redcoats_01.shtml
Or perhaps Simon Schama:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rough_Crossings
The war of independence is an echo of the English civil war from a hundred plus years earlier, many of the issues were similar. The English civil war was much more important to the UK and its not taught in schools much either.
Just because it is an importent event in history does not mean it is covered in schools. IF all of them were History would be a year round course from 1-12 grade (in the US). Probably the most significant event in history is the Sumerians inventing writing but I have yet to see that taught.
You've never seen that taught in a class? I have, many many times. In fact it pretty much was repeated every year. Not a whole lot of time was spent on it, but it was certainly covered.
In my opinion there have been 5 major world-changing events in the last 250 years: The American Revolution, The French Revolution, World War I, The Bolshevik Revolution, and World War II. Out of those, American History only glosses over the French Revolution. This has always seemed odd to me, but not as strange as British history classes glossing over the American Revolution. They were a direct player, one of the two countries involved. I know I'm beating a dead horse here and there's no point in doing so, but it honestly amazes me.
If you want a perspective on how this might have been taught have a look at The American War of Independence: The Rebels and the Redcoats by Professor Richard Holmes, a TV series and book he did for the bbc:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/rebels_redcoats_01.shtml
Or perhaps Simon Schama:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rough_Crossings
The war of independence is an echo of the English civil war from a hundred plus years earlier, many of the issues were similar. The English civil war was much more important to the UK and its not taught in schools much either.
Wait, the English civil war isn't really taught much in the UK? I'm starting to feel much better about the American education system.
Calling it a side-effect is rewriting history. At the time America was Britain's most important colonies. India emerged later, but at the time America was a huge source of raw materials that the Brits ended up having to purchase later (not to mention that cotton became a big part of their economy in the 19th century, something they could have got on the cheap if they had won).
Yeah, but Britain has had a lot of colonies, including some that were every bit as important as the US at the time. Learning about all of them would probably take up all their lessons and leave no room for actual British history (and if there's anything I've learned, it is that being conquered and being the province of another country has a lot more effect than conquering another country and making it a province). Norway was probably a bigger resource for Denmark than Slesvig-Holsten, but Slesvig-Holsten still tend to be covered better in the history lessons here than Norway, because that loss had a profound effect here, more than just being a financial loss.
It's not about doing, having and losing big things, it's about doing, having, and losing important things.
The history of the Soviet Union from 1918 on was a big part of the lesson plan when I was in school.
1918 is a lot closer than the American revolution.
Of course we know less of your history than ours, we're the big dog. Just as Roman history is more well known than Etruscan. The big, powerful, and influential cultures will always be better known. That's just the way it is. I always find it ridiculous that people sneer about how Americans don't know the history of every country in the world in depth. The argument that they know our history is not a valid argument.
Only, in my experience, people here tend to know more about other people's history in general than Americans do. It's not just about learning American history in addition to our own, it's about learning (part of) the history of quite a few other nations.
The Lewis and Clark Expedition was maybe a paragraph in my textbooks. You vastly overestimate how important we feel it was. If anything it's under-appreciated here as it really was a major event in American history. It layed the groundwork for US expansion to the Pacific. People forget that many countries were competing at the time for the Northwest (even the Russians were players) and simply going there gives a country points when trying to lay claim. It certainly isn't something that I would expect most non-Americans to even hear about though, it isn't a major world event.
Maybe it was just because the west coast of the US has so little history they tend to make a mountain out of a molehill, but they had signs where Lewis and Clark had been (with nothing to see), Lewis and Clark exhibitions, Lewis and Clark souvenirs, and even Lewis and Clark festivals. It was quite annoying
I actually liked it there, I vent to a cowboy bar, a country concert, and a fair, and I shopped, ate funny flavoured ice cream, and talked to the locals. It was a really nice place with good food, good weather, and nice people (of course, considering that I'm Danish, that's not saying much), if only they would accept that their history is thoroughly unimpressive, and stop dragging you to see some random field where Lewis and Clark happened to have stopped by. Not to mention always pointing out 'old' buildings, which just leaves you with urge to go “Yeah, that's really old. In fact, I think it might even be a whole decade older than the house I live in ”.I would think the Norse would be a big part of your education as well, but meh.
Why? It isn't that important, save as tool for self-congratulation (“Woohoo! We used to rule!”). We mainly learn history to understand our current cultural background, and to learn to put things into perspective, and try to see the consequences of current political decisions. Learning about a bunch of Vikings wont do as much as learning about the British empire, even though the Brits owned us (not literally) at that time, while we owned them (more literally) in the Viking age (interestingly enough, I don't think I've ever even heard one of my teachers use the phrase 'Viking Age'). It's not about national pride, it's about prioritising what will be most educational to learn about. And I'm quite sure the Brits not spending a lot of time with the American revolution is not about national pride either, but simply because it's not as relevant as other aspects of their (and Europe's) very long history.
You also forget that if it wasn't for the American Revolution the French Revolution never would have happened. Getting involved in the revolution was a major blunder by the French. Beyond even the Americas setting an example of Democracy being a viable form of government, there was a large amount of influence between American and French thinkers that laid the groundwork for the French Revolution. Treating Benjamin Franklin like a great philosopher and inviting Thomas Paine to the country don't go a long way towards convincing a population that they need a king.
That's up for debate. Anyway, without the events leading up to the French Revolution, the American revolution wouldn't have happened either, so I trust you cover that very thoroughly too? And I bet you something went on before, that started the whole conflict between England and France (among others), so you might want to learn about that, and what went on before that, and before that. And since it's important for your cultural background (being British for so long), I guess you also learn a lot about the history of Great Britain before there even was an America, because if that hadn't happened, there would not have been a US as we know it today. And Spain too, for the states that were originally Spanish colonies. Or Portuguese. Or whatever.
Sometimes, you've got to know when to stop. Everything affects everything else, and there's always something that goes on before something else. That's just how it is, you've got to prioritise. The British empire had a huge historical influence which can still be seen today. The events that helped shape Britain were, of course, important for that to happen, but people don't go that deep in normal history lessons, not even Denmark, who had a major influence on the English language and culture. We start with the British empire (with a short explanation of the background, culture, and political system in England at that time), and goes on from there, because getting the whole background is too much material. And in the same way, we focus on America when it was an important player in international politics, and not much before.
I find it amazing myself. It flat out is a big event in British history.
You have to look at it relatively. These are some of the things I learnt about in history class:
-The Roman conquest of Britain, and the establishment of what we might call civilisation in Great Britain as a result of that. Esentially, this is the moment when the British Isles started to become modern nations.
-The Battle of Hastings. Anglo-saxon Britain becomes Anglo-Norman Britain, and we start hating the French!
-The Magna Carta and the establishment of parliament.
-The War of the Roses.
-The English Civil War.
-The reign of the Tudor dynasty, with particular focus on Henry VIII and the establishment of the Church of England.
-The Industrial Revolution.
-The events leading up to World War I and the war itself.
They're just general headings, but I think you can agree all those moments are more important to British history than the American Revolution. There is only limited classroom time, so even some important events have to be missed. The fall of the colonies and World War II being prime examples. (I'll note that WW2 is taught eventually, but not until GCSE level, by which time you can drop the subject.)
Take a look at the History of England wiki article. The American Revolution isn't even mentioned there either, lost in a whole boat-load of nation-shaping history.
I guess that's the point, really. For all the economic effect it may have had, the American Revolution didn't shape England.
I guess that's the point, really. For all the economic effect it may have had, the American Revolution didn't shape England.
Hey, I already said that! ;)
while I'm sure the American revolution shaped the US, it didn't shape Britain.
You have to look at it relatively. These are some of the things I learnt about in history class:
-The Roman conquest of Britain, and the establishment of what we might call civilisation in Great Britain as a result of that. Esentially, this is the moment when the British Isles started to become modern nations.
Gak! Modern nation? You can't really call anything a modern nation until the rise of nationalism and powerful central governments, which only just started to appear in the 1500s. Sorry for the rant, but as a History major this is a bit of a pet peeve of mine.
BTW, where is King Alfred the Great of Wessex? He pretty much created the first state that can actually be called England.
-The Battle of Hastings. Anglo-saxon Britain becomes Anglo-Norman Britain, and we start hating the French!
-The Magna Carta and the establishment of parliament.
-The War of the Roses.
-The English Civil War.
-The reign of the Tudor dynasty, with particular focus on Henry VIII and the establishment of the Church of England.
-The Industrial Revolution.
-The events leading up to World War I and the war itself.
They're just general headings, but I think you can agree all those moments are more important to British history than the American Revolution. There is only limited classroom time, so even some important events have to be missed. The fall of the colonies and World War II being prime examples. (I'll note that WW2 is taught eventually, but not until GCSE level, by which time you can drop the subject.)
Take a look at the History of England wiki article. The American Revolution isn't even mentioned there either, lost in a whole boat-load of nation-shaping history.
I guess that's the point, really. For all the economic effect it may have had, the American Revolution didn't shape England.
While that is a decent list, it has some glaring omissions. Most notably: the American Revolution, World War II (I can't imagine why you would discuss WW1 but not WW2), and particularly the Hundred Year's War.
The American Revolution, paired with the strongly related French Revolution, is one of the defining events of World History. It was the beginning of an age dominated by revolution that continued until at least World War II. And it is foolish to assume that England would be the same today if it had defeated the rebels.
Likewise, I don't think it is possible to understate the significance of World War 2. While World War 1 was a brutal, terrible war, it's ultimate significance was that it set the stage for World War 2, since it itself resolved nothing. However, the aftermath of World War 2 has shaped our entire modern world. The Bolshevik Revolution during WW1 and the Chinese Communist Revolution which was entangled in WW2 speak for themselves in their significance. Just as important to note is how the dissolution of the European Empires in the wake of World War 2 have defined much of the political borders and conflicts of the modern day. I honestly can't believe that there is history curriculum that doesn't teach World War 2 to everyone.
Finally, while it isn't as significant on the world scale, the Hundred Years' War is undoubtably an important event in Western European history. The War of the Roses is a pretty minor thing in comparison, and is practically just a consequence of the Hundred Years' War. Going into the War, England was caught in a tangled relationship with France, where the King of England ruled over half of France's territory, but as the Duke of Normandy was technically a vassel of the King of France. If England had emerged victorious, than the nation of France wouldn't exist today. It is only in the aftermath of England's utter defeat in the Hundred Year's War that the modern borders of England and France emerged.
I don't think a lack of time is even an excuse here, since we covered a lot of English history in my middle-school and high-school history courses here in the US. I remember them covering the Magna Carta, Henry VIII and the Tudor dynasty, the English Civil War and so on. We covered plenty of Roman history, ancient Egyptian history, ancient Sumerian history, and so on as well. I will admit that East Asian history was sorely lacking though, which is a shame since it eventually became my field of study in college.