We had a special interest in European history but, in general, no strong emphasis on the British - just on whoever was dominant at any period of time (Rome, the Holy Roman Empire, Napoleon, etc.).
That said, I feel like we may have given more interest to the Spanish and British Empires, so far as they intersected with the Americas. We had almost no coverage, for example, of the French or Dutch empires, during colonial times. But, that said, there really wasn’t much discussion of the Spanish nor British, either, beyond saying that they took over bits of the world and then moving on to the next topic.
Interesting. In my Grade 8 history class in Saskatchewan, we learned about the Seven Years War, and how both the Conquest of Quebec and the wars between New France and the northern British colonies (not the « French and Indian Wars ») were part of that larger conflict.
Same number of counties in PA. It’s not much more than memorizing the states. For some reason it’s important information you only need to retain for a short time.
Their equivalent of the US senate calls for one senator from each county, guaranteeing conservative political control of the republic for as long as anyone currently alive remains so.
It’s been a while, but my recollection is that my high school European history classes didn’t pay much mind to the Slavic regions and mostly acted as though Germany and Italy were the easternmost parts of “Europe”, but that all the Western European countries were pretty evenly covered, there wasn’t a particular focus on England.
There’s also an Inyo County. Friends of mine were desert camping there and visting old mines. The “Inyo Min(d)” joke got very old.
I don’t understand the need for huge numbers of counties when the population is way spread out. I believe San Bernardino County is still the largest by size in California, but that’s because when the counties were divvied up, it was sparsely populated.
I attended high school in the early 70’s, and we spent an equal number of semesters on English History and American History. Some happy days, our English History teacher would read to us from the book “1066 And All That” as a treat at the end of the class. I think there might have been a day or two on pre-Roman history of Britain, and the rest of it kind of smoothly plowed through the last 15 centuries, as if it was one contiguous history. Which, of course, it was.
But it was English history, no Scottish or Welsh to speak of, so not quite British history.
As a Texan, I’ve never heard of this (although admittedly I have only a passing acquaintance with the fever dreams of die-hard successionists). It wasn’t the case during the Republic. And the current state Senate only has 31 members.
Except of course when the Brit is not representing or fighting for his country, but some commercial firm or, I dunno, underground crime ring. Then they’re always a bad guy. All sophisticated bad guys are British in American media. That is to say, the British are always good guys but the bad guys are always British.
I agree with the general sentiment in this thread, but I am wondering a bit about one specific thing. I could have sworn we discussed the Magna Carta in US History. I don’t mean the context of it, but as part of discussing the Constitution and where it came from. But maybe I’m mixing stuff from civics.
I’ve always considered British history to be a part of my history, but that’s because my family is of English descent. There are things over there with the names of relatives on them.
It would be interesting to see whether French-speaking Canadians feel the same way about French history.
That rings a muffled bell with me too.
However, I didn’t take a lot of history in high school… but what I did take was awesome. In grade 10, we could choose a history course: boring old Canadian history, or… History of Revolutions!!!
Of course I chose History of Revolutions, because it sounded so cool. And it was one of the best courses I ever took in high school. We studied the conditions that lead to a revolution (I wish I could remember them), and then the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Revolution, and the Quiet Revolution.
For some of the material, the course had a real « ripped from the headlines » feel.
We were studying the Chinese Revolution around the time that Mao died and the Gang of Four took over; it was amazing to see news reports that connected directly to the things we were looking at in school.
We were studying the Russian Revolution when I first heard that song « Rah Rah Rasputin » by Boney M; it was fun to have lessons nailed down by a German-Caribbean disco song.
We saw the movie « Action » by Robin Spry about the Quiet Revolution and the October Crisis in Quebec. When I think about it, it wasn’t that many years after the actual events. The movie is freely viewable on the NFB website; even now, it’s gripping.
The fact that Magna Carta was about limiting the monarch’s power to preserve the existing powers and privileges of local elites might or might not have some relevance to at least the initial stages of your revolution, and its still-extant confirmation of due process of law must have done. But perhaps the Bill of Rights of our revolution of 1688 would have a lot of influence too, if only because it was closer in time.
This tread gives me a chance to ask something that has, as an English person, puzzled me for years.
Why do Americans (or at least novelists and makers of t.v. documentaries) so frequently refer to the latter nineteenth century as “Victorian”?
…… Victoria was queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland ( 1837–1901 ) and empress of India (1876–1901). Her reign was one of the longest in British history, and the Victorian Age was named for her.May 20, 2022
At the time, Americans were pretty much the only English speaking people in the world that did not recognize Victoria as their sovereign but London was still the cultural center of the entire English speaking world and when Americans talk about “Victorian” they mean culture, not government or geopolitics.
