In recent history I can name a few countries that were more powerful comparetively than the US. The USSR (CCCP)#, China, North Korea*. You don’t learn about these countries in History, but you expect to be taught American History? (Note… plese prove me wrong and tell me that American students learn about the historical internal affairs of these countries – ones that did not affect the US… ie Bay of Pigs^)
Maybe America is mentioned (and its 60 years in global power) in political classes, but 60 years does not warrant a history lesson (me thinks).
Marty
I believe these are politically and militarily powerful nations
WERE … not so now
^ see… I was taught something about american history… IN POLITICS Classes
It certainly wouldn’t matter to Poland, but the OP asked about UK schools. Also, being small compared to WW2 is an incredibly worthless distinction. It’s like saying that some country is less populous than China.
Actually, we do learn a bit about the USSR, China, and North Korea in History, to some extent. However, it’s quite questionable to say that any of those countries is or was more powerful than the United States; in the case of North Korea, it’s simply laughable. And the Bay of Pigs most certainly did affect the US.
I don’t know about that 60 years thing. For much of the Cold War (the early bits, anyway) it was generally agreed that the Soviets would almost certainly win a straight-up (ie., non-nuclear) fight… and we didn’t learn Russian history either.
To address your wider point, though, the circumstances of the birth of the United States are not particularly relevant in a global sense. The three-fifths compromise probably doesn’t even get a mention in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and knowing who John Hancock was is not exactly germane to the study of anything other than American History.
Now, on the other hand, learning about how the Industrial Revolution reached the New World or how the US rose to power overnight (in geopolitical terms) would be important… which I suppose explains to some degree why we covered the New Deal.
As I noted above, we didn’t touch on India at all and they had only won independence 50 years earlier (when I was in school).
What on earth are you smoking, and where can I get some? North Korea?
How come it’s always “smoking” ??? Maybe I’m on the drink?? And you can get some at your local bottle’o (that’s alcohol store).
North Korea is powerful in the sense of military power and political friendships. Do you not agree?? I never stated that they contributed to the well being of humankind.
That’s quite a qualifier to put between parentheses/brackets! And when you say “we didn’t learn Russian history either” who & when are you referring to? And where were you schooled? Your profile indicates you were nine years old when the USSR dissolved & thus I’d imagine the Russian Revolution had lost a bit of its burning relevance by your day. I don’t mean to digress, but rather am interested in placing your comments in perspective.
You missed the point… that was more of a point/example. I did say it was off the subject a bit. I didn’t focus on the american revolution BUT america itself and their HUGE HELP in WW2. In the same sense as Poland didn’t teach american, nor the UK involvement in the war, becasue the Ruskis were the main point, the UK students (in regard to the OPs question) weren’t learning the American revolution, becasue the Uk had more noticlible points in their huge historical past.
And you comment about NK being laughable - It may be - don’t want to get into that topic (as Im no historian and it’s really going off the topic), but I hope you can see why I regard NK to be powerful when they have friends who are powerful. Ie If china and all said… hey boys… yep, feel free to invade NK. I’m sure the US would be very capable of kicking its ass.
North Korea is #30 on the list when it comes to military spending - lower than its neighbor to the south, in fact.
Sure, the Chinese protect them, but that doesn’t make them powerful; that makes them well-defended. Nobody considers Canada a military power just because it has very close ties to the US (although Canada is relatively powerful in its own right).
Unless I misread your post (and it seems others read it the same way), you’re saying that North Korea is more powerful than the US.
UK private schools. I discussed it on the previous page.
The Russian Revolution had indeed lost all its burning relevance by my day (although of course study of the Russian Revolution goes hand in hand with the study of WWI), but you seemed to be implying above that the American Revolution hadn’t.
Psst… that list doesn’t say anything about military spending. What it says is that they have lots of soldiers in uniform - poorly equipped, ill fed and largely untrained soldiers. See here.
This is something of a digression, but I studied the history of Spain in Spain for one year of high school. I distinctly remember them studying “the conquest of the Americas.” I was no great student of American history, but even then that struck me as odd. We definitely study it as “the discovery of America.” (Not that I don’t recognize that as problematic in its own way.)
I am somewhat implying this, since by this point only a single superpower remained, which I’d think would push the US into the “worthy of further study” category, albeit not to the John Hancock level of detail.
That sounds like the kind of socially conscious attitude that is the vogue in European education these days (see German attitudes toward the Holocaust and French attitudes toward the occupation of Algeria).
Calling it the “discovery” of America is a bit insulting from a certain point of view, since there were perfectly good humans already living here, and so on.
There’s a line in one of Salman Rushdie’s books (The Moor’s Last Sigh) that goes something like, “Vasco Da Gama was hailed as the man who discovered India- but how can you discover what was not covered?”
Sorry … I said “powerful comparetively”… I didn’t mean it was more powerful than the US. Damn… maybe a good thesauraus/dictionary would be handy. THIS is why I get in trouble with my mother-in-law. You’ll soon learn that I tend to use the wrong words when I communicate.
My bad… I was thinking about military power when I read this… I wasn’t trying to weasel out of this… I promise
Not at all. The Spanish have always understood their engagement with the New World as a conquest. That’s where we get the word conquistadores from.
It strikes me that it’s the English-speakers’ (and particularly US) concept of the “discovery” of the Americas which is the politically-conditioned view. The Spaniards built an empire in the Americas and (for a long time) had no moral issue with empire-building, so they had no constraints on recognising and naming the reality of what was done. For the US, however, the tension between their professed love of liberty and their assertion of the rights of people against governments sat very uneasily with the hard facts of how they had settled their territory, and indeed how they were continuing to expand into new territory and settle that. The notion of territory being “discovered” sidelined the concerns, and to some extent even the existence, of the indigenous inhabitants, and so helped to avoid confronting that issue.
With respect to the point about the US as a Very Important Nation, Worthy of Study by All; yes, of course, this is true. But the circumstances in whcih the US acheived political independence are a comparatively minor theme; much more signficant is a study of how and why the US came to be Top Nation.
See my edit to previous post… ie 