I’d also like to chime in and mention that I don’t intend any of what I write to be a knock on the Brists. I lived in England for about 3 months and loved it there - I even liked the food!
I also went to school in Ireland, and I never heard of the war of 1812 until after I had left school.
Britain did learn from it’s experience with the American colonies. For the most part, they didn’t go to war to force their other colonies to stay under their control. Canada, India, Burma etc. gained autonomy without war. It took a long time with India and Burma, but they did eventually leave.
Oh yeah, absolutely - I even had my graduation from basic training at Masada. Though as with everything, there is plenty of revisionist thought about the event.
It’s more than that, of course. The Israeli national narrative is that of fall and rebirth; if you want to make the last part special, you have to place some empahsis on the first. Sometimes you get a sense that Jewish history stopped at 140 AD, went through a long dormant period punctuated by a few events like the Crusades and the Spanish Exile, and then burst back into life in the 19th Century.
But I’m hijacking here; enough.
Is that really the spin you’re taught on it? It would certainly explain a lot of YouTube comments.
To be fair, small things can cause large political results. Gordon Brown overheard calling someone a “bigot”, for example. It doesn’t take much to rally public disfavour, and it’s frequently not proportionate to the event in question.
Only in hindsight. Who could have known what those colonies would become? At the time, we’re talking a few of many worldwide colonies, many much more important.
Hindsight is always 20/20. The North American continent just wasn’t that important at the time compared to other territories. The fact that mass imigration changed that massively in later years was utterly unpredictable at the time.
Going to school in the 1970s, our history textbook had long accounts of the American Revolution in it, but we never looked at them. I think we’d crawled all the way from the Babylonians and the Greeks up to the Civil War (ours not yours) and then jumped straight to the 20th C. because that was what the ‘O’ Level examination syllabus was going to be on and it was time to ‘teach to the test’ rather than go on stuffing knowledge into people.
History as a school subject has been marginalised here in recent years and is not a ‘core’ subject. Many manage to avoid it altogether in later school years. I’d say more important is our abandonment of Modern Languages, which are in steep decline in schools, possibly because it’s something that you can’t bluff your way through.
No, I’m sorry, that’s just not true. That may be what the British have been telling themselves for the last 220-some-odd years, but (sorry) it’s just sour grapes.
It clearly was important. It caused the fall of Lord North’s government. That is prima facie evidence that the British regarded it as an important loss.
Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Gainsaying doesn’t count. 
This is interesting - how much history is mandatory for you guys?
From as early as I can remember what my classes were about (so 5th grade-ish) we had Social Studies (basically history) every day, every year - with the only exception being that in 12th grade we had two 1/2 year courses, one in Economics and the other in International Studies (which was less history and more a look at modern politics, diplomacy, trade organizations, etc.).
ETA: Not quite true - my junior high school was on an 8 day schedule and we had SS 7 out of 8 days; high school was a 6 day schedule and if I remember correctly (pretty iffy) it was 6 out of 6 the first two years and 5 out of 6 the second two.
Ah here we go. 11 total (including North).
How many other colonies did Britain have at the time, anyway? The Carribbean islands (far and away the most valuable), Canada, Australia (barely settled) and Gibraltar. That’s it. India at the time wasn’t a colony - the UK had control of a couple of ports, and was supporting some of its allies and protectorates, but officially it didn’t rule a single square inch of Indian soil.
The big colonial land rush started half a century later. At the time of their loss, the American Colonies constituted over half of Britain’s overseas holdings.
Interesting - here’s my old high school’s current required social studies courses:
grades 7 and 8 - generic social studies
grade 9 - World History
grade 10 - World History
grade 11 - US History and Government
grade 12 - Economics and Effective Participation in Government
The grade 9 and 10 classes form a 2 year global history course, with the first half running up to Columbus, and the second after. (Yes, that’s probably US-centric, but you have to pick something for a cutoff).
They also have these elective courses:
Intro to Psychology; The American Century, and Political Science
It’s good to see that more than half of the history courses are in world history rather than US. I am a little disappointed though - we still have a a foreign language requirement, but it looks like Spanish is the only option. I took Fench when I was there.
http://www.cchstroy.org/frame/frame.html (see the course directory link on the bottom left)
The population of the United States in 1790 (at the time of its first census) was 3,929,214.
The population of the United Kingdom as of 1801 (the time of a one-off census) was 8,308,000
The US at the time of its independence was not some insignificant outpost (as some of my British friends seem to have been taught).
In all fairness, it be more guessing than ‘taught,’ based on the responses so far…
I’m guessing it was probably actually larger, due to slaves only counting as 3/5 of a person, and American Indians not counting at all.
Of the 3.9 million:
a little under 700,000 were slaves; 60,000 were free non-whites; the rest (3.15-ish) were white.
It appears that non-taxed native americans were omitted.
http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1790m-02.pdf (see page 6)
Also, keep in mind this was only a census of 12 states/colonies - not even covering Indiana.
ETA: Spoke beat me too it.
Hunh. We didn’t cover it in my high school.
Oh wait. It hadn’t happened yet. Never mind.
(And really, grammar school is so far back, I don’t have a clear idea how much of world history we covered between that and high school. This would have been California in the 50s. Sorta remember Egypt, Fertile Crescent, Indus river, Greece, Rome, Holy Roman Empire, voyages of discovery, Pre-Columbian empires, Tudor England, hmm Commonwealth, etc. Don’t remember anything tying the French and Indian War in with the Seven Years War or tying the War of 1812 in with the Napoleonic Wars. Because of California’s history, we did get a certain amount of Spanish and Mexican history.)
From my perspective as a non-Briton, that’s actually more than my curriculum dealt with with respect to British history.
Why would it be surprising that a country would concentrate its history curriculum on things relevant to THAT COUNTRY?