The American Revolution

[Azuremen]

Canada isn't that far...

Nah still have Border Control.

I think you are too young to really understand or appreciate things in the US or elsewhere. Give it another decade before you make up your mind

 

[FoolKiller]

With respect to US history - and I will add that I'm often impressed with how much Americans know of their own country's history and geography, compared to how little Brits know of their own country's history and geography - there's just not that much of it. I was at Fort Jefferson recently and we opted to explore the park ourselves rather than the guided history tour. The park guides agreed that, being Brits, we were probably used to much, much more history behind things (we pointed out the 11th Century church at the bottom of our street) and, with the history of the fort being largely Caribbean piracy and US Civil War, probably not all that interesting to us. We still enjoyed the place though (along with several others from the Seminole wars).

No, the US, and the Americas in general, have gob smacking tons of history, but it is just that the US as a nation has a short history. In just a few hours I can be at Wickliffe Mounds where I can see the archeological remains of a prehistoric Native American culture. I can also go to Squire Boone Caverns or Mammoth Cave where I can learn both natural and US history.

For anyone willing to remember that history encompasses far more than just the events that have a direct lineage to today's society you can find a ton anywhere on Earth.

However US history is drilled into us as a matter of some sort of patriotic duty it seems. We go out of our way to allow ourselves to experience that from colonial period buildings turned into museums with people re-enacting the daily activities that occurred there to re-enacting famous battles and events. I mean, I have been aboard replicas of Columbus' ships, been in a working water wheel-powered mill, and ridden on a steamboat. Multiple actually, and at least one was confirmed to have had Mark Twain as a passenger. In fact, in two weeks the city of Louisville will have the annual Great Steamboat Race as part of the Kentucky Derby Festival. And that festival alone represents how we have turned history into festivities.


To be honest, I am more surprised when people in the US don't know their history.

 

[Famine]

No, the US, and the Americas in general, have gob smacking tons of history, but it is just that the US as a nation has a short history.

That's why I'd demarcate the history of the US from the history of North America. I'd say pretty much everything from Juan Ponce de Leon onwards (I've been to his lighthouse - or at least the lighthouse on his Inlet) can be classed as US history, as it is ultimately what lead directly to the establishment of a European foothold on the continent - and everything from that point lead to the creation of the nation.

Other continent-specific natural history and indigineous peoples' history could be classed as American (rather than US) history, since it pertains not to the country but the land it's on.


There is an odd thousand year gap in how history is taught in the UK, on similar relevance-based grounds. Kids learn about the Romans and their presence in the British Isles, though they learn more about Roman life in Italy rather than the UK. The next thousand years is fuzzed up a bit - completely missing what we used to call "The Dark Ages" - and then, suddenly, Vikings and Normans. 1066 and all that... The irony of this is that the period missed out pretty much covers the period of Germanic immigration and is directly relevant to almost every white Englishman alive today, but it's little to do with the formation of our country - and so it's barely taught.

Still, I'd wager that almost no Englishman reading this will know when England became a single state (out of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms that preceded it), nor when Wales was added to the kingdom. I'd hazard a guess that some Brits (mainly Scots) will know when we became the Kingdom of Great Britain and that some Brits (mainly Irish and Northern Irish) will know when we became the Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland respectively.

 

[DK]

^ Wait...are the Irish somehow classified as British?

 

[Stevisiov]

^ Wait...are the Irish somehow classified as British?

Ireland is part of the British isles but its not part of Great Britain. At least that's what I was told.

 

[Famine]

Yes and no.

Northern Ireland is, currently, British - as in a territory of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Ireland was formerly British - as in a territory of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

Neither is part of Great Britain (England, Scotland, Wales), but both are part of the British Isles.

 

[Keef]

We actually spent a pretty good chunk of time on the Medieval period, with a good bit on the Dark Ages. That's probably where I formed my opinion that religion is a crock.

 

[FoolKiller]

I'd say pretty much everything from Juan Ponce de Leon onwards (I've been to his lighthouse - or at least the lighthouse on his Inlet)

So you took my suggestion. 👍

Other continent-specific natural history and indigineous peoples' history could be classed as American (rather than US) history, since it pertains not to the country but the land it's on.

Yet I find it extremely interesting as it is a history that runs right up to industrial times. There are centuries of civilizations that were on a very different path than the rest of the globe. It also provides us a very stark reminder of what could happen if we ever manage to travel off this rock and find other civilizations elsewhere. It is a lesson of both caution and self-control.

The next thousand years is fuzzed up a bit - completely missing what we used to call "The Dark Ages" - and then, suddenly, Vikings and Normans. 1066 and all that...

What's there to know? Inquisition, swords, disease, castles, swamps, killing, overzealous church. I think Monty Python covered all the basics.

 

[Dotini]

The next thousand years is fuzzed up a bit - completely missing what we used to call "The Dark Ages" - and then, suddenly, Vikings and Normans.

What's there to know? Inquisition, swords, disease, castles, swamps, killing, overzealous church. I think Monty Python covered all the basics.

For a long time I've been so interested in castles that I've started a castle book collection and even built models of them. The stone ones were mainly a Norman innovation, I had thought, with "dark age" motte-and-bailey systems replete with wooden castles, some eventually replaced with stone, preceding them. An interesting question arises about the development of the feudal/manorial/shire system, and how much this might have developed from the "dark ages" as opposed to the Normans.

I have the impression that Yorkshire, Famine's neighborhood, is home to an amazing number of castles in various states of ruin or restoration. Sorry if this is getting us off topic, but it would very interesting to me if our esteemed Famine could say a few words regarding castles and the history of the shire system in Yorkshire.

Respectfully,
Dotini

 

[Famine]

You wouldn't be far wrong.

I currently live in North Yorkshire (the largest of the Yorkshires ). Within an hour of here there's York Castle (11th Century), Scarborough Castle (12th Century), Skipton Castle (11th Century), Pickering Castle (11th-13th Century), Helmsley ruins (12th Century), Knaresborough ruins (12th-13th Century), Bolton Castle (14th Century and not in Bolton) and Cawood Castle (12th-14th Century). Lindisfarne Castle (16th Century) and Abbey (7th Century) are just up the way (and Whitby Abbey, 7th Century also), with Bamburgh Castle (11th Century) just before it.

I'm originally from South Yorkshire which is quite... urban (it largely consists of Sheffield, Rotherham, Doncaster and Barnsley and the tiny gaps between them), but even South Yorkshire has castles from days of yore - Thorne, Mexborough, Conisborough - but largely castles are no more than remains and earthworks.


Many British castles, particularly in the North, date from after the Norman Conquest, after earlier fortifications were destroyed by Vikings or William's Harrying of the North. It's almost like 1066 was a reset button for England...

 

[DVNTST8]

Taxation without representation. Ironically, we do that to ourselves now.

No, we have the representation, it's just horrible representation, and we keep re-electing the same _______________.

Separation from 'church and state' was secondary. Starting to do that now, too. Scary.

It has become a habit to hide behind the parts of the Constitution that fits the particular circumstance, and disregard the rest.

See, that's interesting...Throughout my schooling "History" is taught in small bits and pieces until around 4th Grade, where you usually take a multitude of required courses: A State history course, followed by a basic U.S. history course the next year....

In grade school history was, for me, pretty much a date memorization course, not going into how or why things happened, just when they happened.

Not to discount all that you posted, but to get to the point, I didn't have a State history course, but in Missouri, probably wasn't a real good idea, as how three of the most 'important' figures in the State's history are Bill Anderson, William Quantrill and Jesse James and it was the only state to ever have it's democratically elected state legislature and governor forcibly removed by the U.S. Army, on the orders of President Lincoln.

It was mostly U.S. History until high school, then it was western civilization, early US History (up to Civil War) and late US history (after the WANA/WSI/Civil War). And a Constitution course.

Even then, it was all dates and facts, nothing on WHY, other than the King taxed us too much and the South had slaves.

Keep in mind, the first 7 of my 12 mandatory school years were BEFORE the U.S. Department of Education came about.

Funny, here in Canada we learn about how America kicks ass and chews bubble gum too. We didn't go into specifics about the New Deal, but it was implied that it "saved America" or something along those lines.

Most of my history classes (elementary) have been about confederation of Canada, the war of 1812, Native Canadians, and the whole process of Europeans colinizing (is that a word?) Canada. In high school, we learn about WWI to present day history. We learn about how Canada was always a super badass army in both World Wars, and how after WWII we were peacekeeping white knights who could do no wrong, unlike those war mongering Americans.

[sarcasm]But all you do is follow whatever the UK or US wants you to do anyway.[/sarcasm]

Our cultures are a little different but quite similar in most ways, and we do remember you rescuing/giving safety to some embassy workers during the Iran hostage deal.

The New Deal didn't save the U.S., it actually prolonged the depression, but the progressives don't want you to know that. But since they've gotten a hold of your health care system, they have to keep up the facade that it's better, so, it goes hand in hand.

But they're not taught in a way that exemplifies the failure. For all the learning about the Constitution, it is never related to other things, such as the many interventionist wars we've fought throughout our history. It's taught in a way that makes us look like the good guys in ever case, when that actually is not the case in most examples.

That's why I'm surrounded by idiots in my daily life, because the American history everybody learned in school was clear as mud, and about as detailed.

This is true. We don't learn, for the most part, that Eisenhower sent the first 'advisors' into Vietnam, and lots of it gets sugar coated, even as distasteful as it was.

OK, let's get back on topic here.
Forget the education part of it.
What does everyone think of the revolution?
Do any of you non bubble gum chewing, kick ass people feel that it would be better if we had not broken away?

Since I'm a bubble gum kicking chewing ass person, we set a lot of things in motion with our little war for independence. It worked out great for a while.

Haven't you ever noticed that a large number of people from other countries act as if we invented slavery? It seems to never occur to many that we had slavery because it was brought here by the countries that colonized the continent.

Other countries? Try our own!

It seems as though slavery was invented on July 4, 1776, and we're the only country that ever had it.

No. We are screwed up now when a group of guys (and a few womens) on the east coast pretend they know what is best for everyone in all 50 states, and do so on many issues that are not specifically a power granted to them as a power grab. Imagine having the same situation from a group of guys on the other side of the globe who might not have ever stepped foot on this continent.

QFT.

I'd argue that they do - they just don't learn more about your history.

Kids in British schools learn about the histories and the cultures that are directly relevant to the formation and demographics of Britain. We don't have "world history" and "British history" in the same manner than US schools would have "world history" and "US history" (or even "state history"). We may invoke local sites in history lessons, but then the UK is littered with Roman, Viking, Norman and even Civil War sites - it's part of the whole. We just have "history".

My 9 year old is currently learning about the ancient Egyptians and Greeks, which is pushing for five thousand years ago (basically Bronze Age stuff). I recall doing similar when I was her age. She's spent about half a year on each.

Short of A-levels (16-18 years) and degree courses, we don't learn too much about any specific period - all you can cram into 4 hours a week for three months - but it covers five thousand years of cumulative heritage.

With respect to US history - and I will add that I'm often impressed with how much Americans know of their own country's history and geography, compared to how little Brits know of their own country's history and geography - there's just not that much of it. I was at Fort Jefferson recently and we opted to explore the park ourselves rather than the guided history tour. The park guides agreed that, being Brits, we were probably used to much, much more history behind things (we pointed out the 11th Century church at the bottom of our street) and, with the history of the fort being largely Caribbean piracy and US Civil War, probably not all that interesting to us. We still enjoyed the place though (along with several others from the Seminole wars).

For anyone willing to remember that history encompasses far more than just the events that have a direct lineage to today's society you can find a ton anywhere on Earth.

However US history is drilled into us as a matter of some sort of patriotic duty it seems. We go out of our way to allow ourselves to experience that from colonial period buildings turned into museums with people re-enacting the daily activities that occurred there to re-enacting famous battles and events.

To be honest, I am more surprised when people in the US don't know their history.

We learn some of the what, but almost none of the why and completely none of the proper 'as it should be'. Our history is being taught in the PC sense as it pertains to the progressives, not as 'this happened then, and why'. We are as ignorant of our own history now as ever.

We're taught that evil corporations caused the Great Depression, when it was more protectionism and Smoot-Hawley.

I didn't learn this in school, I had to learn it on my own after.


Now that my rant is over, I'll say this.


There are lots of events in the colonial period of world history that you can blame on the Brits. But to solely blame the Brits for all of it is shortsighted and jumping to conclusions.

The Spanish, French, Italian, Dutch and Portuguese have just as much blame to be assessed as the Brits.

Can't blame the Canadians for anything except Terrance and Phillip.

Oh, and Ann Murray.

Thanks for Rush (the band), BTW.

 

[Joel]

Since I'm a bubble gum kicking chewing ass person...

 

[DVNTST8]

At least I know you actually read it!

 

[Primus Ortus]

See, that's interesting...Throughout my schooling "History" is taught in small bits and pieces until around 4th Grade, where you usually take a multitude of required courses: A State history course, followed by a basic U.S. history course the next year. Then World History in 6th grade, Geography in 7th (sort of like World History-lite), U.S. History in 8th. Freshman year was World History once more, Sophomore year was Economics and Civics, Junior year was U.S. History (again), and our Senior year was an optional Contemporary History (post-WWII world history) class that wasn't actually required (to be honest, half of it was going over the newspaper and other news-of-the-day). College even required a single History of Civilization course for everyone, regardless of major (many topics on world history again, which sort of stopped around 1900 or so).

So we get the History thing pounded into our heads for many years, sort of like taking most Algebra courses, it just goes a bit deeper each year; funny how I never took too much interest in History until after it was no longer required.

+1 on that. And then I got into law school, learned a meager amount of British common law, and took several courses in US Constitutional law, where I gained legal/theoretical and historical perspectives. I was bored with history in high school and undergrad, but began loving history later on. It was my family history, going back to England, Scotland, and Denmark, however, that has me the most interested. Some day I'll get back across the pond and visit my heritage - can't wait.

 

[Keef]

+1 on that. And then I got into law school, learned a meager amount of British common law, and took several courses in US Constitutional law, where I gained legal/theoretical and historical perspectives. I was bored with history in high school and undergrad, but began loving history later on. It was my family history, going back to England, Scotland, and Denmark, however, that has me the most interested. Some day I'll get back across the pond and visit my heritage - can't wait.

Constitutional law. So you're aware that half the rules written since the Constitution have been unconstitutional in some way, including actual amendments to the Constitution.

Perhaps the Founders should have noted in there specifically that amendments can only add to, clarify, or even broaden, but never contradict or reverse. That part would already be understood to some of us, but obviously it's lost on others. Was there anything in the original Constitution and Bill of Rights actually worth reversing?

Imo, the three natural rights are detailed enough to make perfect sense. The Bill of Rights isn't even necessary because those three already cover every base imaginable. All it takes is a little brains to figure this stuff out.

 

[Madison Lee]

I think I’ll let the people who participated in the American Revolution speak for themselves- I found a couple of quotes on Shmoop that I think will really explain the grievances of the revolutionaries.

“…having long groaned under the burden of ecclesiastical establishment [the established Church of England in Virginia], they pray that this, as well as every other yoke, may be broken and that the oppressed may go free.” - Signatories of the "ten-thousand name" petition

"We boast of our freedom, and we have your example for it. We talk the language we have always heard you speak." – Samuel Addams to Englishmen.

 

[Mattv81]

OK, first off, I want to say that I'm American.
I live in New England where most of our revolution was fought way back in the day.
I am proud of my country for just about everything EXCEPT our cars. (Let's stay on topic, don't dwell on this please)

I myself am proud that we were able to break away from the British rule. You have to admit, the king was treating us unfairly.

But I'd like to hear the opinion of some of you guys from across the Atlantic.
What do you say UKers?
How do they teach the American Revolution in your schools?
Do they teach about it at all?

Not trying to start a third world war, just want to discuss this.

I'm British, and I would like to say that I am not proud of my country, and I congratulate you for winning your independence, but it didn't last very long. If you want to know why I say this, then please view the clips in the first post of this thread. They are extremely relevant to this topic, and I think you'll find them very interesting. When you've seen them, I hope you'll agree that both Britain and America need a new revolution, and I hope we can work together to find a solution to our shared problem. All will be explained when you watch those clips.

 

[Exorcet]

I also don't get how you can just stop learning history. History is the most important subject.

I know it's an old post, but I disagree. History can be an interesting subject, but I haven't got much out of it in a decade. I haven't reached back to anything I've learned in high school history classes since high school standardized testing. And history classes in college were a complete pain. I'm an engineering major and I pretty much just took the classes and then forgot everything else.

I believe that I would have benefited much more if I could have declared my major back in high school and taken more math and science classes instead of history.

I also feel that history isn't more important for the average person. It's history that should considered a special subject left to those who will have a career related to the field. It's more important for the general population to understand math and science. Perhaps it would make them more industrious. Con Ed wouldn't be complaining about the load on the power grid if a bunch of people were willing and able to modify their air conditioners to run partly off solar power.

All that said, I'm a bit surprised that the US Revolution isn't really covered in Britain, but it's probably not a big deal.

 

[ALP1986]

Returning to the original point the American Revolution is not taught in British schools. There are multiple reasons for this naturally (empire denial akin to the present US for example), but I think the main reason is that it simply wasn't a significant event from a British perspective.

People need to remember that the original British colonies were very different to the United States which grew out of them as it slowly expanded in the following decades and centuries. Sometimes it expanded through deals (LLP), sometimes through war; and sometimes it even lost (War of 1812). At the time the north American continent was little more than respective European colonies, and far from the nation it would become.

The truth is that at the time the British had far bigger fish to fry: The French. So much so in fact one could even argue that the American Revolution was little more than a minor conflict relating to this larger issue.

This does not mean that British children shouldn't learn about American history (the more the better naturally); its simply a reflection of priorities facing a limited syllabus. When given the choice between learning about a minor civil conflict (as it was viewed at the time) and defining impacts of the Roman empire, the industrial revolution or the Blitz, its easy to see why the American Revolution fails to make the cut.

 

[Hun200kmh]

Well, I understand this is basically a US/UK/CAN/Ireland thread but if you guys want something of an outsiders view here's History as it is taught in Portuguese schools:

World History

Pre-History ... First Civilizations ---> FastForward to the Egyptians ---> The Greeks ---> The Romans ---> Fall of the Roman Empire, Germanic migrations to the Peninsula. Christian kingdoms ---> 700 AD The Arabs invade and kick the Christian's ass up to their last stronghold (ASturias, land of Fernando Alonso) ---> Split of what's left of the Christian Peninsula into several kingdoms, Portugal being one of them.

Portuguese History

From 1100 to 1400 we kick the arabs out (in a movement from North to South that would shape forever our country). We ocasionally kick the spaniards also (Castilla mainly) when they start getting ideas of "togetherness"

From 1400 to almost 1600 we set sail and discover the world. We are then a great power and generally speaking we rule the southern Atlantic, the Indic and we go as far as Japan and Australia. In european policy, Spain is our enemy, England our ally and that would endure centuries.

Circa 1580 our king dies without son or daughter and surprise surprise, due to some stupid peace treaty the next in line is his cousin the spanish king. We were ruled by the King of Spain (and Portugal, always a separate crown) and the idiot lost the best of our fleet in the disaster of the invincible armada.

We kick one last time the spaniards out of here in 1640, we manage to recover a few possessions they had lost, mainly in Brasil to the Dutch, but Portugal never again reached the status it had before.

From that point on, not much to say, a brief explanation is given on the succession of events that, both internationally and nationally, led to the XXth century. The American Revolution is mentioned after the French one and in the context of the ideologies of the era and the struggle for independence from the bigger, richer colonies, not only the USA but also - and more important from a portuguese point of view - Brasil. The main actors are named but no specifics on what really happened are given, for that you will have to follow History studies in University