“Importance” wasn’t a matter of counting heads, though. Approximately one-third of the 1801 UK population figure you give above is accounted for by Ireland, but if you think Ireland rates that largely in the UK government’s assessment of what mattered, you are wrong.
As for the American colonies, if you look at things that matter to the government a very different picture emerges. How much of the imperial revenue was contributed by the 13 colonies? What proportion of the British army was raised there? How many Dukes and Earls had their principal estates there? What proportion of the British political establishment represented or reflected the views and interests of the colonies?
In 1776, Ireland would have been much, much more important to the UK government than the American colonies. We can’t rate the signifcance of America at the time by extrapolating backwards from the significance it has today.
But any way you want to define it, it mattered. You want to ignore population figures and talk about how much it mattered to the government? Well, it caused the downfall of the government. So I’m guessing it mattered to the government a great deal.
This is kind of what I was alluding to in my earlier posts. In high school, we spend more time on world history than on US history. So, that’s our baseline. From this thread, it seems as if that isn’t the case in other places.
My guess is that it’s probably because the US: a) has less history of its own to cover and b) has been so impacted by the history of others - considering that up until Columbus our history basically is world history, that is to say we brought it with us (not counting native american history, which doesn’t get the attention it deserves, in large because it’s so difficult - although I highly recommend 1491, great book, but not high school level).
Anyway, I guess the point is that I was surprised other countries didn’t spend 2 or 3 lectures on the AWI because I spent 2 years studying world history in high school, and I assumed if others did the same, then it would be likely to come up. I’m starting to think that the reason it doesn’t come up is because other countries just don’t have the time to spend 2 full years on the history of other countries.
Detroit and Maine? That’s something I didn’t know. I know very little about the War of 1812, which I don’t really consider especially significant either.
I’m quite sure I did learn about the American War of Independence in school, especially the early stages that were fought on Canadian soil. For example, I know that General Montgomery captured and occupied Montreal and General Arnold reached Quebec but didn’t manage to capture it, and that the American troops then had to retreat back beyond the border and couldn’t reoccupy Canada before the end of the war. And I did learn about the Loyalists as well.
Really? I knew Canada had sent soldiers to the Boer Wars, but I’m not sure I even heard about it in school. Canada’s participation is important, though, in the sense that it tells us something about the mentality of English Canada at the time, which even in the late 19th century was still very British.
And as for learning about defeats, as I said I did learn about the Rebellions (though I don’t consider them exactly defeats, as most of the rebels’ goals were accomplished within a few years) and about the Conquest as well. Knowing about the Conquest is of course necessary to understand anything about Canada.
Eh, as I recall, any history I had in 1st through 4th grade was the national mythology pilgrims and Squanto type stuff. 5th and 6th grade was World History but it was really more Western civilization. We started with mesopotamia and the valley of civilization, then the greeks, then romans, then european history but it was always in the context of how that led to America being formed. Then 7th and 8th grade was American History and I forget what we learned about in high school. I’m not surprised that british kids don’t learn a lot about the american revolution. I didn’t learn a whole lot about german or spanish history.
Maybe the emphasis on the War of 1812 is an Ontarian thing, though. Given the number of towns/streets/colleges/etc that are named after people and events in that war (Brock Road, Brock Street, Brockville, Loyalist College, etc), and actual battlefield locations that are within easy distance of where I grew up (Old Fort York, Lundy’s Lane, Crysler’s Farm, Queenston Heights, etc), that makes sense.
I don’t remember hearing much about the Boer War when I was in school… I was very surprised to find a prominent memorial to it in the middle of University Avenue in Toronto. I think that is an example of just of far the mentality of Ontario has changed… even during my father’s childhood (1930’s), it was all For King and Empire. I’ve seen his school books.
Apparently, fifty years ago, the Orange Order parade was one of the largest in Toronto… these days, I suspect most Torontonians have never heard of the Orange Order, or could say what it stood for, let alone known the importance it once had. There’s apparently still a parade, but it’s a few hundred people and they don’t bother to block the street off for it. There is an Orange Order hall on Yonge Street, but it’s overshadowed by a Chinese retirement home.
I don’t remember much of the history I took; I picked up most of my knowledge later. When I was in grade 10 (1977-78), though, I chose “History of Revolutions” with Mr. Esler rather than boring old Canadian history. History of Revolutions was cool. We looked at the factors which lead to a revolution. There were ten signs that revolution was likely, and I wish I could remember what they were, other than that #4 was ‘sustained mockery of the establishment’.
We studied the October Crisis, watching the film Action. We studied the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Revolution, and the American Revolution. We were studying Rasputin and the Tsar when that Boney M song “Rah Rah Rasputin” came out, and I was ecstatic: a history course was actually reflected in events in the real world around me! This was reinforced by studying the Chinese Revolution (Sun Yat Sen, the Kuomintang, the Long March, Norman Bethune, etc) when the Gang of Four was in power. History was happening before our eyes!
Yes, it probably is. Probably even specifically Southern Ontarian, as this is where many of the battles took place.
There’s got to be some irony in this, but I just can’t find a good joke to make about it. I’ll leave it to my betters.
I’d say that “sustained mockery of the establishment” is more of a sign that we’re in a society with free speech than a sign that a revolution is likely.
The October Crisis seems to have really shocked English Canada, or else they seized on it as a symbol. I get that you learned about it not too long after it happened, so it was probably sort of relevant, but it’s far from the most important event in Canadian history in the last half-century.
“Mattered to the government of the day” is not necessarily the same thing as “is of enduring historical significance two hundred years later”, though.
And it’s not as though it was a terribly significant change of government. North was back in the Ministry a little over a year later, as Home Secretary. He never became Prime Minister again; the leadership of the Tory party passed to Pitt the Younger, who was in office continually from 1783 to 1801. I suspect that the decline of Lord North mattered more to Lord North than it did to the nation. Apart from his own departure from the scene, the only observable consequence of his fall was that the Whigs formed a ministry which lasted a little over a year.
A prime minister losing a vote of confidence is not an unusual situation in a parliamentary democracy. As the link you yourself posted shows, this has happened eleven times in the UK – and I’m willing to bet that a fair number of other prime ministers have resigned, or have been dumped by their parties, to avoid this fate. Do you suppose every one of those occasions is something that British schoolchildren should have to study in depth today?
The rise of the US is of enduring significance to world history, and should be studied as such. The rise of the US of course starts with the war of independence, but the more globally significant parts of the story come later. If we are interested in the spread of republican/democratic/enlightenment political ideals, the French revolution is, in European and global terms, a much more significant event. It receives correspondingly more attention in high school history curricula.
Of course, these global considerations apply to all students, not just to British students. The OP asks about British students in particular. What significance does the loss of the North American colonies have for the unfolding of the UK’s history? Well, it led to a change in government, but as noted that is hardly earth-shattering. It led to the establishment of a penal colony in New South Wales, but that is of more relevance to Australian history than to British history. And no doubt you could point to other consequences, but none of them seem to be massive. And, in any event, you don’t need to know much about the independence struggle itself to study its consequences for Britain.
Contrast the Irish rebellion of 1798. It was unsuccessful, but it led directly to radical constitutional change – namely, the Act of Union, and the foundation of the United Kingdom in 1801, with consequences that profoundly marked British history and with which the British are still living. Yet I doubt that even the 1798 rebellion gets much study in British school history classes.
What history is and isn’t taught to schoolchildren is mostly a topic for jingoists. People who aren’t interested in history will know nothing about it whether they are taught it in school or not, and people who are, will. The fact is that most people in most countries know very little about their own history and even less about others, and it only becomes a problem when some item of national pride isn’t pounded home in “their” country as much as it is in “ours”.
Many Americans labor under the mistaken notion that the American colonial insurgents defeated a major superpower, like their were the Zulus of the 1700s. Britain wasn’t a major superpower in the 1700s, it wasn’t even a “nation state” in the sense that it is today. The King of England at the time was a German who didn’t even speak English and who sent his own German troops to fight in the New World. The American colonies gained their independence largely due to the assistance of France, which WAS a major European power, even a superpower, perhaps.
The “British Empire” that most people think of, Professor Higgins, Mary Poppins, Rourke’s Rift, and all that came into being after the conquest of India, the defeat of Napoleon on the continent, the Opium War, all these things were far in the future at the time of the American revolution.
The American revolutionaries first put the ideas of the Enlightenment into practice. And in so doing, they inspired the French revolutionaries. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen was heavily influenced by Virginia’s Declaration of Rights, and to a lesser extent by the Declaration of Independence. It even borrows language from the former. Not coincidentally, Thomas Jefferson was in Paris as US ambassador at the time the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen was drafted, and was in correspondence with members of the French National Constituent Assembly.
And not only did the French revolutionaries take a cue from the USA, but also revolutionaries all across the Americas. Símon Bolívar dreamed of creating a USA-style federation of liberated states in Latin America.
Back in Europe, the Society of United Irishmen took inspiration from both the American and French revolutionaries.
And the influence of the American Revolution has echoed into more recent history. Ho Chi Minh cited the American Declaration of Independence in Vietnam’s own Declaration of Independence.
I gather that our British friends (and probably generations of British historians and teachers) are reluctant to give the American revolutionaries their due.
Having said that, it doesn’t surprise me or bother me in the least that British schools gloss over the American Revolution. It is entirely to be expected for reasons I have already stated.
It does concern me a bit that posters to this thread can’t acknowledge that maybe the American Revolution was a bit of a bigger deal than its minimal coverage in their textbooks might have led them to believe.
Another slight angle on this; I picked up a history book by Lord Acton (him wot said ‘Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely’) - it would be perhaps 120 years old now - in which the emphasis surprised me.
Acton was more interested in sea than land, it seemed implicit to this thoughts that the American colonies would have mattered more had they been on valuable sea routes or in another way strategic - like South Africa for the Cape.
I thought it was interesting that emphasis hasn’t been lost during the 20th century.
Wikipedia adds another thought about the effect of losing the 13 colonies:
Sure. As I said, in Ireland we studied the American Revolution as a precursor to the French Revolution.
But of course the French Revolution was, from a European perspective, by far the more important event. Yes, the American revolution came first, and gave concrete political effect to many of the same values and ideals, and influenced French thinkers. But its immediate effect was to detach politically some far-off colonies which were already at the margin – geographically, socially, economically, in every way – of Europe. The French Revolution took place in the heart of Europe, overthrew for ever the legal and political establishment of the greatest power in Europe, and led directly to a series of wars to export revolutionary ideology throughout Europe, and almost directly to the rise of Napoleon and therefore to the Napoleonic wars, which radically changed the course of the history of most European countries. So which do you think was the more significant event for Europe? Which do you think was the more significant event for the UK?
And, given that an in-depth study of the French revolution is absolutely central to any course in modern European history, a review of the American revolution for its relevance to the French revolution is part of that. But the question arises as to whether the student gains anything by studying the American revolution beyond that. He obviously does, if he is interested in the study of American history as such. But in terms of its significance for any particular European country, even the UK, I suggest he doesn’t gain very much.
The OP raises the question of contemporary British attitudes to the American revolution; “most Brits I know are of the patriotic sort, and would probably not want their kids to simply be taught that such a humiliating event (at the time) in their nation’s history was actually “for the better”.”
I’m not British, but many of my friends are. I think they are aware that their country has been humiliated more than once in the past, and they are not embarrassed by that today. Hence I don’t think this would be an issue. The question of whether a particular humiliation was “for the best” wouldn’t occur to them.
This thread may cast light on US culture as well as on British culture. Recall that Britain was probably the greatest power on earth in 1900, but has been in fairly steady decline since them. More than a hundred years of decline is enough time for the British mind to adapt itself to a point where self-respect does not depend on continued and constant success in the game of being Top Nation. The US has yet to have this formative experience (and it might be mischievous of me to suggest that they are just starting down the same road, so I won’t). The result is that I don’t think it costs the British as much, in emotional terms, to acknowledge past defeats as it might cost some Americans. (See, for example, reaction above to the suggestion that the outcome in Vietnam might be seen as a defeat for the US.) Whatever other reasons there might be for skimming lightly over the American revolution in a British history course, I honestly don’t think this would be a big one.
As for me, I’m Irish. We revel in our past defeats!
Again, a bigger deal to Americans, not to Britons. As I said, if something as monumental as Parliament deposing the king and inviting a Dutch man to invade the isles and take the throne isn’t covered in our history lessons, why should the American revolution?
For the record, I did study a bit about the American Revolution in my British school in the 1980s, but, apart from maybe a lesson on the Declaration of Independence, the event was put in the context of the French Revolution, which we studied for YEARS (at least it felt that way at the time).
And I had never even heard of the 1812 War until recently. When I heard it mentioned, I thought it was referring to the Spanish Peninsula War, another event which we studied in huge detail as part of the Napoleonic stuff.
Yes, this is my recollection too. I can check the Primary (Elementary) School and Secondary (High) School textbooks the next time I’m in work but offhand I know there’s a Leaving Cert. (Final High school exams, for college entrance) History module called The United States and The World 1945-1989.
Here are some questions from the 2006 exam.
1.How successful was civil rights agitation in the United States during the period,
1945 - 1968?
Why did the United States become involved in armed conflict in Vietnam and
why did it eventually withdraw from that country?
To what extent can the Moon landing (1969) be seen as both a major advance in technology and as a statement of American foreign policy?
During the period, 1945 – 1989, what was the impact on American consciousness of one or more of the following: the American Dream; the “red scare”; “counterculture”?
The students answer one of these. This isn’t really all that relevant to the OP so apologies for highjack.
As it says on that page, these topics are not statutory, but they are by far the most common.
At primary school, most of the history taught is British because there’s a big focus on local history - being able to go and see local castles, Roman ruins, Tudor palaces, etc. There’s also an emphasis on the most obviously fun and gruesome bits of history (with the best records and resources to use): Romans, Greeks, Egyptians and Victorians.
FWIW, the Norman Conquest is not one of the most widespread topics - it pretty much is covered in one or two lessons, if at all. It would be taught a lot more in places close to Hastings - though, oddly, my daughter’s school, not far from the Tower of London, completely ignored the Normans and my childhood school, also not that far from the Tower and really close to another couple of Norman castles, also ignored it. But then, we didn’t study the Armada either, despite it setting off from our town. Too much history, too little time, I guess.
The American revolution isn’t taught as a discreet subject; it’s part of the slavery topic that’s often a part of Black History Month, and that’s partly because Britain was a big part of slavery too and it’s part of the multi-cultural curriculum.
From 15 onwards, history is optional. There are different exams you can take and they change fairly frequently. Some of them will cover the American Revolution, some of them won’t at all; the focus is more on depth of study than breadth. 20th-century history is a popular option and the US is a big part of that.
But we all know that America’s really powerful now. How does teaching about the American revolution change that? Britain once numbered some parts of the US among its colonies; there was a revolution, and America became independent. Ta-da! It’s not a hatred of admitting our country’s former losses - it’s just that nobody actually cares.
So you’re saying that all of the people here offering their honest opinion as to why it isn’t necessary for most countries to cover the AWI are probably jingoists? That seems a bit harsh.
