The American West from 1840 is part of GCSE history. I imagine that teachers mention the earlier revolution.
It’s a big world out there and kids only have a limited time to study history. They already study the US in several areas of history; it is a little self-important to say that that is still not enough.
I don’t know. I’ve never gone to a US high school and don’t personally know anyone who has.
My nose isn’t out of joint. I just think it’s funny that the English have hypnotized themselves into believing that the loss of the American colonies didn’t matter. The size of the colonies relative to the mother country (as pointed out above) gives the lie to that notion. But I get it: English historians have swept that unpleasant loss under the rug for a couple of centuries now, so that today, students don’t learn about it.
That’s fucked up, man. I thought we was boys.
How much did you learn about Vietnam?
Yes, the only possible reason for British schools not making the American revolution a major part of their courses has to be sour grapes. It couldn’t possibly be because they don’t think it’s as important as other areas of history, so, while it would be good to cover it in more detail, there just isn’t the time.
For goodness’ sake. No-one is saying it didn’t matter. Just that we have a thousand years of history just since the Normans to cover, and that’s only our own country. We cover a lot of your history in our schools. We do not need to cover all of it. And now go and look at the size of the population of India when we relinquished our pathetic struggle to hang on to it. Then look at the population of Canada, Australia, South Africa, Ghana… in fact, here is a list of the countries of the Commonwealth. Knock yourself out with thinking you were the only one. http://www.thecommonwealth.org/Internal/191086/142227/members/
I’m having fun with y’all at this point. Seriously, I understand that English history covers a lot of time and territory and it’s impossible to cover it all in detail. That’s perfectly reasonable and understandable. The two assertions (/rationalizations) that struck me as comical were that the American Revolution was somehow not important to the human rights revolution of the 18th century and that the loss of the American colonies was no big deal, really.
That’s remarkable. You live just a hop, skip, and a jump away from the US border.
Can I take this one? A fair amount, even though that period comes near the end of our humble history. Yes, we got a watered-down, biased version of it, but I also remember classroom debate & essay assignments about it. But, then, we also learned about it from more immediate sources. The veterans of the war were living & still live among us, for the most part. Many of us fathered or adopted Vietnamese children. We made movies about it, too.
For what it’s worth, I teach English, not history, but we actually cover Vietnam in part of the English syllabus. I don’t know if it’s taught in history, but there’s a poem in the GCSE (the exam they take when they’re about sixteen) anthology which necessitates a basic understanding of what happened. We also have to ensure an understanding of Apartheid, the slave trade, the British occupation of parts of Africa (sorry, I mean our glorious empire building, of course), the Holocaust, and a couple of other bits of history. That’s something else to bear in mind when you’re thinking about what’s taught and how; history lessons aren’t all of it.
No-one has asserted that your decision to leave the loving embrace of the Borg was unimportant in the development of human rights. However at the same time, things were changing all over the world. Apart from anything else, we were having a bit of an Industrial Revolution of our own right here, which made a far bigger splash in the life of the nation and of the individual British person than losing a colony. It’s not “comical”, and it’s not sweeping it under the rug; it’s just that there are bits of history which are really important to know, bits of history which your own nation feels it wants its citizens to know, and bits of history which, by necessity, have to take a back seat. Saying that we still feel it as an “unpleasant loss” and hence are unwilling to tell our children about it is a bit like saying that modern British Catholics are bitterly yearning to have an uprising and demand all their churches back from the Protestants.
The bit where you clearly were accussing me of it and when called on it you somehow came out with a ridiculous quasi-explanation about red herrings.
I don’t believe you and I doubt very much anyone else here does.
I would never describe the government of the UK stable at the moment, never mind back when the Republic of Ireland left the UK. There has been a slow but gradual devolving of power to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. In the past year we’ve seen the return of anti-British terrorism in Northern Ireland. There’s not-insignificant independence movements in both Scotland and Wales.
Which is where you’ve gone wrong. You assumed I’d leap to the defence of my own country whereas in fact I am completely aware of and accept that there are stability issues.
And for Christ’s sake, learn conversational English. “Half of” wasn’t a scientific assessment of the situation and anyone that wasn’t desperately backtracking and using some kind of misplaced national pride to defend the clearly undefendable could see otherwise.
And that is the last I have to say on the matter. If you can’t accept a civil war during which a large portion of the United States wanted to leave the Union and form their own government and country - and by the way solving it politically at a federal level doesn’t mean it wasn’t unstable, it just means that the stability issue was dealt with politically - is in any way a sign that there might just have been a stability issue in the United States then I am afraid that you are blinkered to the point of ridiculousness. When I brought up the issue I asked if I was out of line and clearly I was as, just like I expected, there are those that just can’t accept that at any point in the two centuries of existence that the United States of America was anything but the strongest democracy in the world.
Reply with whatever you want. I won’t be continuing with this ridiculous discussion.
Mixing your quotes a bit there.
I know Americans, but not so closely that subject matter in high school comes up. My best friend’s American but went to high school in Canada. In any event, U.S. curricula are made up at the state level - knowing what someone took in high school in New York wouldn’t tell you a great deal about what they take in Minnesota or New Mexico.
It’s really no more remarkable than you not happening to be closely acquainted with anyone in any random city an hour away - which is about as close as I am to the U.S. border and Buffalo, NY.
I learned of the Puerto Rico independance movement 15 years ago. I shrugged, because I do not care. The independance movement has never been huge, at most getting a third of the vote in a totally non-binding, non-serious preliminary popular resolution.
However, a small core is highly committed and has caused a lot of trouble, perhaps also because the Puerto Ricans themselves don’t have much enthusiasm for the idea. The movement is itself quite legal, and frankly nobody in the US really cares.
That’s actually an important point. The British Civil War isn’t covered at all in the KS3 syllabus or any GCSE syllabus, even tangentially. That’s the British Civil War. Our own country.
Is there any surprise, then, that we don’t cover American Independence to the extent that some posters here think we should? The KS3 and GCSE curricululum does include American history to quite a large extent already, compared to the rest of the world. Again, how much do you want?
It’s a big old world out there. Just how important do you think your constitution is, really?
Some of us don’t even realise that it was the English Civil War, not British. 
Doh! Gah. Yes, I did mean English Civil War. I’m so used to talking about ‘British English’ despite knowing (and pointing out) that British English contains a lot more than the way Hugh Grant talks that I fell into the trap of saying British when I mean English. That actually annoys me, so thanks for pointing it out quickly.
And technically there were three English wars (1642-1646, 1648, and 1649-1651).
Do they all qualify as civil wars, though? From what someone else (villa, I think) said earlier, it’s a pretty vague definition. There’s only one war that’s called the English Civil War.
I think they are counted as three separate wars by some historians.
http://www.british-civil-wars.co.uk/military/index.htm
I am a bit dubious about the second war, but certainly the first and third should be considered on their own because the first involved Charles I, and the third Charles II