most Brits don't know about the war of independence.

[dolf]

Seriously, you ask the average Brit and they won't have a clue. American history isn't taught in school. I had no idea until it was mentioned enough times on lit for me to get curious.

It's funny/weird when you guys bring it up as something you think we're all bitter about.

...like how Brit footy fans think the Germans see us as arch rivals, the way Brit fans think of the Germans.

 

[knottygirl]

Seriously? You mean they don't know much about the war or they don't even know that there was a war?

I seem to remember Brits getting offended by how their military officers were portrayed in the movie "The Patriot".

 

[Lancecastor]

Funny, here we learn American, British, European history and of course Canadian history in school.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Funny, here we learn American, British, European history and of course Canadian history in school.

I LOL'ed

 

[Noor]

How do they handle the lost of the American colonies or even India for that matter?

Brits have been involved in a lot of wars of independence over the years.

 

[Lancecastor]

The Canadian History only takes 20 minutes.

 

[bronzeage]

Most of what Americans know about the Revolutionary War comes from the movies.

 

[unregistered]

 

[parodyluvr75]

Maybe it's called something else, like tea hating wankers rebellion or something? History isn't just written by the victor.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Lancecastor]

Worth a watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFgPX0hnNfA

 

[Disgustipated]

We can understand why that embarrassing part of your British history isn't taught. History for the most is written by those who prevail.

This coming from a guy who claims to be a Vietnam veteran.

 

[doowdniw]

Most of what Americans know about the Revolutionary War comes from the movies.

Unless they take US and World History in high school. We don't study much in the way of British history over here either, so I guess we're even. Had some of my education in the UK as a child, so I picked up a little bit from that, as well as countless trips back and forth across "the Pond".

 

[Hard_Rom]

Funny, here we learn American, British, European history and of course Canadian history in school.

ROFLMFAO

 

[dolf]

How do they handle the lost of the American colonies or even India for that matter?

Brits have been involved in a lot of wars of independence over the years.

Colonialism is brushed over. It's not a source of pride, the details aren't covered. It's not considered cool to take over people's countries these days. We dig the commonwealth though.

We learn mostly western euro history in schools.

...we're part of your roots, but you're not part of ours. It's all a bit long time ago & far far away.

 

[parodyluvr75]

Worth a watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFgPX0hnNfA

The stupid hurt my head.

 

[bronzeage]

Americans in your state anyway.

And much less is taught about the Mexican-American War.

You remember that lesson don't you, the one about the President who lied to Congress and then tied a Declaration of War to a bill which supplied the Army he sent to the border. Anybody who voted against it, hated our troops.
I'm sure you can name the President.

At least my state was paid for. If you don't count stealing it from the Indians.

 

[oggbashan]

I have just looked at the current UK National Curriculum guidelines for History.

None of it is specific to any period or event.

Fifty years ago, my last History examination at age 16, O level, covered English and European History for the period 1850 to 1914, ending at the outbreak of World War 1.

We had covered earlier periods up to age 14, but the American War of Independence was seen as a sideshow in our continuing 18th and 19th Century wars with the French. But we were given the impression that it had been an unnecessary war. If British politicians had been less intransigent, the 13 Colonies could have been given the rights to raise their own taxation and to have representation in Westminster.

 

[Hard_Rom]

And how many Yanks can name the main belligerents in the English Civil War? Without Wikipedia. Yanks don't even know England was once a republic ruled by Puritans. You want to talk ignorance or turning away from an embarrassing loss. Ask a Yank about the War of 1812, where they invaded Canada and got their asses whipped. There were more Frenchman at Yorktown than American "patriots". The French hadn't won a sea battle against the RN in centuries. Finally they win one, just in time to help the Yanks win their rebellion.

The Americans should erect a statue to this guy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Germain,_1st_Viscount_Sackville
He did more to lose the war than the Yanks did to win it.

The Brits know nothing about the War of 1812 either. They had their hands full with Napoleon at the time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-bC2TWTGyQ

 

[IrezumiKiss]

We can understand why that embarrassing part of your British history isn't taught. History for the most is written by those who prevail.

This coming from a guy who claims to be a Vietnam veteran.

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/1/14787/3896438-1732221440-origi.gif

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/19bpujmbar5ivgif/ku-medium.gif

 

[oggbashan]

How do they handle the lost of the American colonies or even India for that matter?

Brits have been involved in a lot of wars of independence over the years.

India? There was no war of Independence in India after the 19th Century unsuccessful revolt against the East India Company. India had been promised independence for support during WW2. It would have been later but for US pressure on the UK's finances. The US wanted the British Empire dismantled as a condition of their support in WW2.

IF Indian independence could have been delayed a couple of years, there might have been less bloodshed between India and Pakistan, and fewer religious refugees. But that is only a 'might'.

 

[Noor]

Interesting as most American families were not here before the Revolutionary war, although mine was but not English.

 

[Noor]

India? There was no war of Independence in India after the 19th Century unsuccessful revolt against the East India Company. India had been promised independence for support during WW2. It would have been later but for US pressure on the UK's finances. The US wanted the British Empire dismantled as a condition of their support in WW2.

IF Indian independence could have been delayed a couple of years, there might have been less bloodshed between India and Pakistan, and fewer religious refugees. But that is only a 'might'.

Gandhi? “Quit India” Movement? 60,000 freedom fighters jailed by the British?

 

[dolf]

Interesting as most American families were not here before the Revolutionary war, although mine was but not English.

That makes it even stranger to me.

 

[oggbashan]

Gandhi? “Quit India” Movement? 60,000 freedom fighters jailed by the British?

That wasn't a war. That was very effective non violent civil disobedience. Gandhi was very popular with the British voters, and influential in making the UK government decide to leave India.

But the real factor at the time was US financial pressure.