Boo. I just realised that I was answering the thread in general, not the OP, although hopefully you can use my links to gather further info if you’re interested.
To that, I’d say that it’s hard to say from what perspective that particular revolution is taught, because it’s not taught much. It certainly would not be taught at all until the age of 14, and it’s extremely unlikely that it’d be jingoistic, or suggesting that we should have kept those colonies.
It wouldn’t be terribly unusual to walk down the street and meet someone who probably fought against British colonialism in India - that kinda makes colonialism not something you’re distant from or proud of.
This is what I have a bit of a problem with. I think understanding other countries is a good thing, but apparently I’m going against the grain on this on this one.
Sure, in which case we can teach important stuff about the Roman, Egyptian and Greek civilizations that pretty much defined Europe, the dawn of civilization in the Indus valley and fertile crescent, the various power struggles on the European continent, the birth of the modern nation state, various religious wars and schisms etc. etc. Still no room for a relatively insignificant event like the American revolution.
Oh it is, but in a limited amount of time and with a lot of history to cover it isn’t considered important enough. Sorry, that’s just the way it is. It isn’t misguided jingoism or anything like that, as others have pointed out just about anyone who was anyone managed to invade the British Isles (except the Spanish, they tried too late). We’re used to learning about these sort of things, where those “in power” lost.
When you’ve grown up with a Norman Castle just round the corner from your house, a little spat thousands of miles away pales into insignificance.
What’s your point? Everybody’s heard of America, like they’ve heard of China, Mongolia and Sudan. That still doesn’t make the American revolution as important to Britons as the major events in British history. Further, on a global scale, the American revolution was a pretty minor event. You can’t seriously be suggesting that the American revolution as an event should be taught before the rise and fall of the Roman empire, or the dawn of civilization, can you?
Darth Panda, why would foreigners need to learn about the American Revolution in class? Americans keep informing us about it, you’d think it’s breaking news!
The basic answer to the OP is that it is not taught from any particular perspective – as a rule it is not taught at all. This is not because Brits somehow feel the need to down play the significance of the American War of Independence – of course it was important both at the time and in what it meant for the future – or the USA as a country but because history teaching in English schools is in a mess generally.
From my point of view (back in 1970 I was allowed to drop history at the age of 14 – what’s the use of history to someone interested in science?! – but did a history degree in my own time many years later) the major problem is the lack of an overarching narrative. Look at that list **scifisam **linked to for the KS3 curriculum, lots of interesting topics but no structure. Kids end up knowing a lot about specific themes – slavery, the Glorious Revolution, Elizabeth 1, middle class life in 1900, etc – but will not have much idea of how it all fits together. And as it says, it is not compulsory to cover all these topics. The AWI may get a mention in relation to the Unit 16, France 1789-94 why was there a revolution?, as our Irish friends have mentioned, but if the school chooses not to do this there is no topic to hang it on at all. (Incidentally, notice that although there is a topic on the causes of the French Revolution, there is nothing on the Revolution itself and the subsequent Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars – in fact “Napoleon, who is this Napoleon guy?”)
GCSE History, Key Stage 4, 14-16 year olds, is even worse. Again it is topic driven but this time there are fewer topics, maybe a total of six to eight covered in the two years. I checked with my daughter who did her GCSEs four years ago and she can’t remember anything from school about this period at all. Effectively she jumped from the English Civil War to the First World War with nothing in between! Plenty about the United States here though: the 20th century dominated the GCSE curriculum she did and that was heavily weighted to the US – post-WW1 treaties, the Great Depression, the Cold War/Vietnam, Civil Rights, etc. The lack of background knowledge is now a bit of a problem when trying to understand English Literature and Art History for her degree!
As a general point I don’t think those teaching British history have any problem with or are embarrassed by Britain losing colonies, they are much more likely to be embarrassed by acquiring colonies and the idea of the British Empire. Independance for the 13 Colonies, however bad it was judged at the time, would - to most people - just seem inevitable in the long term. Australia gained independance, Canada gained independance, India gained independance, all the African colonies gained independance. Some were given up after a struggle, some were waved off peacefully. The United States just got there earlier!
But that’s the point. Losing a major chunk of its colonial possessions (3.9 million subjects) was a major event in British history, collective denial on the subject notwithstanding.
It’s certainly important that it happened, but the specific incidents surrounding it (e.g. the Boston massacre as noted in the original post) aren’t necessarily as important.
I can’t speak for the U.S. (I’m Canadian), but we certainly didn’t study British history in a lot of detail. Just selected high points like the Norman Conquest and the Magna Carta, and Britain’s role in general world (or Canadian) history. I never learned about the English Civil War in school, for instance, or anything about Britain’s relations with Ireland. But maybe my school just sucked.
Relatively speaking, no it wasn’t. Go through the list of topics that I posted earlier and suggest a topic that shouldn’t be taught instead of the American revolution. It wasn’t as important as the Norman conquest, or the Roman occupation of Britain. It wasn’t as important as the industrial revolution or even the agricultural revolution. It wasn’t as important as the Tudor period. It wasn’t as important as either World War. It certainly wasn’t as important as the English civil wars. Simply speaking, from a British perspective, the American revolution just isn’t that important.
This is reasonable. There’s a difference between saying that there simply isn’t enough time to cover everyhing and saying that something is completely irrelevant, or to that “nobody cares.”
No, I am not suggesting that the American revolution as an event should be taught before the rise and fall of the Roman empire, or the dawn of civilization.
You could probably infer that from the fact that I never suggested that the American revolution as an event should be taught before the rise and fall of the Roman empire, or the dawn of civilization.
Pretty much zip. The Wars of Independence started during the Napoleonic Wars; in several locations including Mexico the uprising was not against Spain but against the French invasion and this later got co-opted into Independence.
Spanish 8th Grade “Modern History” courses start with the French Revolution, move to Napoleon, avoid describing how did Fernando VII “the Awaited” manage to piss everybody off, avoid any mention of the Carlista Wars, move to the First Republic, King Amadeo, the Restoration, and then heeeey! The War of Cuba! (I understand it’s called the Spanish War in the US) We suddenly lose our last colony without ever having mentioned losing the previous ones… (no, Sahara isn’t mentioned in class. Too recent for History, not recent enough for Civics) If you’re Humanities Track you get a rehash in 12th Grade. Mind you, there is very little mention of the overseas colonies of Aragon, either: it’s all Castilian-centric; or of the loss of those or why there are so many Italian lastnames in Argentina and relatively high amounts on the Spanish Eastern seaboard.
Apart from you are. The rise and fall of the Roman empire is little taught in British schools, again, due to time pressure. If you’re suggesting that time be allocated to teach “international history” like the American war of independence, then you’re effectively claiming it should be taught ahead of other international history, the likes of which includes the rise and fall of the Roman empire.
I understand wanting to know how much other people learn about your own country… most people don’t hear much about Spain beyond “Columbus discovered America”; if they get more, it’s about points where we interacted directly. There’s more people who have heard of La Reconquista thanks to an old movie with Heston and Loren than to their History class, but the thing is, why would they? As enormously important as it is to us, and as much as it influenced the Conquista, it’s directly relevant to current world events only in the context of “Islam and Europe”. I understand Swedes for example don’t get any more, but then, the only time we were involved in the same war the main player was the French - why would they get more?
Perhaps, but I can’t see the October Crisis as anything resembling a revolution, the reasons for passing the War Measures Act notwithstanding. In the Canadian context, the Rebellions might be more similar to a failed revolution, but even there I think they didn’t have a chance.
