So is the Enlightenment, which was the context in which we (in Ireland) studied the American war of indpendence.
But nobody has actually said it is completely irrelevant. Go on, look back - nobody’s saying that.
FWIW, Spoke’s list of world-changing historical events loosk reasonable enough to me, and is not that dissimilar to the curriculum and England&Wales (Scotland has a different system and curriculum, and I don’t know much about it). On a world-changing level, I’d definitely put the AWI higher than the English Civil War.
However, if you live in England, particularly if you live near where some of the civil war events took place, the English Civil War is kinda more significant, but also, importantly, better to teach. You can go there and stand on the same spot that things happened and feel the history through your feet. You can get a local historian to come in with a civil war helmet that he found one time. You can mention that many of the people in the class are probably descended from those who fought in that war.
The kids’ll learn more and it’ll be more fun; usually, the latter is necessary for the former.
FWIW, most kids probably do know most of the ‘four score and seven years ago’ thing from the huge number of films and TV shows it’s in. 
We never put any time into the Magna Carta’s history at school, btw; some A-level history syllabuses might have, but I didn’t take that. Did you guys really study the Magna Carta? This thread makes it sound like American schoolkids either spend half their school careers studying history or never go in depth beyond ‘this happened,’ and I’m pretty sure neither of those is true.
I think you’ve overlooked some posts - either that or we’re interpreting them differently. Let me know what you think.
I spent 55 minutes per day on history, 7 out of 8 days or 5 out of 6 depending on the year. 2 years were devoted solely to world history. We kind of went back and forth between ‘deep dives’ and ‘surface skims.’ The Magna Carta gets a good deal of interest in the US - my experience tells me its the piece of British history US kids are most likely to be familiar with - probably because it played such a large role as the basis for our government.
…are you speaking for all US schools or the one that you attended?
Well I can only really speak for my school directly - but I know that NY requires anyone seeking a Regents diploma to take 2 years of world history. And I think most Americans are much more likely to have learned about the Magna Carta than some other influential pieces of British history (with the exception of their role in global events in which the US also participated, like WWII and such).
ETA: I was also taught by Sisters of St. Joseph, who were pretty gung-ho on education (and some lay people, maybe 75% Sisters).
But that is in fact the date that is celebrated as the commencement of Canada’s existence as an independent nation state; July 1, 1867. There was a big to-do about it last week. That’s what I was saying.
If you wanted to argue Canada’s independence was a gradual process then of course you’d be correct, and could equally argue it started in 1840, not 1867. But as it happens, July 1, 1867 is the day we’ve picked, and it’s really the most logical one to pick. The 1840 union really didn’t make Canada independent enough, and by the time of the Statute of Westminster it was really too independent and legally established to consider that the point of independence. July 1, 1867 is the most logical date.
If you think about it, it’s no less logical than the USA selecting July 4, 1776. The United States was no more independent on July 5 than it had been on July 3, and many of the Declaration’s signers still thought of themselves as British. The signing of the Declaration of Independence didn’t really make the United States independent in any practical sense; they had to win the war to accomplish that, which took years more. In fact, the war started BEFORE July 4, 1776, so it’s not even really a logical starting point if you want to date independence from the beginning of the war instead of the end. But it’s a good point to signal the break.
…I just had a glance at the wiki for the Regents Diploma on wiki and it looks like this caters for “high-potential students”. Do all “high school” children in New York study 2 years of history? Do you have any citations that most Americans have learnt about the Magna Carta and other influential pieces of British History?
Yes, all NYS students must take 2 years of Global History to graduate, plus one more of US History, plus two other half year social studies courses. Regents diploma just requires higher scores and some other stuff.
http://schools.nyc.gov/Academics/SocialStudies/default.htm
You can see on page 17 of this .pdf link that the Magna Carta is part of the NYS Global History curricuum.
I just noticed that you also asked about other pieces of British History - the curriculum does include Richard the Lion Hearted, Shakespeare, Henry VIII, the English Reformation, Calvin, Elizabeth I, Hobbes, Stuart Rule, Puritan Revolution and Cromwell, Glorious Revolution, Newton, Locke, British Industrial Revoltion, and some others…
ETA: same citation as previous comment (the pdf file)
We covered a fair amount of English history in my World History class in a public high school in rural Georgia, including for example the Magna Carta and the Tudors (alongside the Reformation).
And that is of course not to mention the way British history infuses other parts of the curriculum, like literature classes (I recall covering Beowulf, Chaucer, Shakespeare, various poetic movements. In each of those cases, understanding the literature meant learning historical background. The English Civil War came up in the context of our study of the Cavalier poets, for example.) Or science classes (Newton and Darwin). Or music.
Thing is, British history is American history. The roots of our country and its culture are in that green and pleasant land. Americans have a great affinity for the British (and the Irish as well) because of those cultural connections. Shame the feeling doesn’t seem to be mutual. I sense more resentment and ridicule than anything when the British talk about America.
When I lived in England, I got the feeling that quite a few Brits had no problem liking an American, but they didn’t really like Americans. I’m not sure if that makes sense, or if it’s even remotely true - but I did get that sense. It didn’t matter once you got to know them as individuals; I made some good friends and I really, really enjoyed my time there.
ETA: but it can be a little disappointing…
Well I don’t want to play the victim. I understand the resentment to some degree. Americans can be pretty arrogant. I get that.
Maybe so - every country has stereotypes that others may label them with - none of them are very helpful.
Well, it’s “Canada Day”, not “Canadian Independence Day”. And from what I’ve heard it wasn’t really all that celebrated before the 70s, when it was called “Dominion Day”, which has the benefit of being entirely accurate: Canada was in fact established as a Dominion on July 1, 1867.
I like 1848 myself. I think it’s as important a year as 1867, if not more. But of course it’s not when the process of Canadian independence started, nor ended; it started much before 1840 and ended sometime in the 20th century. And it’s probably not suitable for mass celebrations, as I cannot even name the exact day during this year when Canada was granted responsible government.
Of course. On the other hand, the US became wholly independent in a much shorter time than Canada. It’s a good idea to insist on the gradualness of the whole process so someone like Alessan can understand why the UK was still dictating Canadian foreign policy for decades after the date Canadians commemorate as their national day.
I know it would be ridiculous to try to isolate any one reason for the disparity we’re seeing in this thread, but I wonder if this might be a part of it? I can only speak for my own experience, but we did history for a couple of hours a week, certainly not even approaching this level. (I dropped it at O-level time, so presumably those who were doing the qualification picked up a level). So, not only do we have other (arguably as important, arguably more to us) areas to look at, perhaps we also have less time dedicated to it?
Well you’re misreading the quote from my post that you have there: I did not say that the American war of independence was 'irrelevant". I actually said that to modern British kids it is less relevant than the struggle for Indian independence. Maybe you should re-read some of the others on your list as well.
Fair enough on your own post but do you really think that this post doesn’t say that it’s **totally irrelevant **to world history?
The comment that I responded to said that:
So maybe it’s true nobody said it’s completely irrelevant, but at least one person said that it’s totaly irrelevant to world history. And several other people made posts that state or imply a similar belief. I listed most of them to show some of the thoughts expressed earlier in the thread - most of the recent posts have been considerably more reasonable.
As to your post - it probably would have been better if I left it off. I was doing a quick scan and quoting the posts that jumped off of the page at me.
I really do think that this has a lot to do with it, based on your post and the posts of some others.
I must admit, when you said you studied for 55 minutes every day, that seemed an awful lot to me. Up to age 16, I think we did about two hours history every week (split into two separate lessons). ‘History’ was also one subject - it wasn’t split into ‘British’ and ‘World’ history.
This clearly changed for me when I did two years ‘A-Level’ study, when my lessons were split into ‘British’ and ‘European’ for the period I was studying.
But just to go back to the OP for a moment, the perspective I was taught on the AR was: a brief study on what caused it, a brief study of the Declaration of Independence, the involvement of France, and how the event and the ideas that came out of it influenced thinking in Europe and the french Revolution. All good, dispassionate stuff. The fact that you beat us Brits really wasn’t the focus. But the event certainly wasn’t ignored.