American Revolution

[sweetnpetite]

I've been thinking about the American Revolution- despite all of the noble things we've been tought about it, I'm starting to question those motives. Especially in light of having read "Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl" and then reading the Declaration of independence. Never before had I noticed such an emphasis on the monitary reasons for independence- those first stated are mainly about taxes and other things that seem to indicate that the desire for freedom was mainly the desire for the freedom to occumulate great wealth. It seems obvious that the *ideals* of freedom stated were for their own purpose and gain, and not universal as they seem to imply.

Anyway, I was wondering-- what are people in other countries [esp. England] taught in school about the American Revolution?

I've been wondering a bunch, so you'll probably see a few more threads from me

 

[Guest]

Anyway, I was wondering-- what are people in other countries [esp. England] taught in school about the American Revolution?

Fuck all.

Seriously,

Lou

 

[neonlyte]

Anyway, I was wondering-- what are people in other countries [esp. England] taught in school about the American Revolution?

In England we tend not to dwell on battles we lost - unless of course they fuck up - then we gloat.

 

[rgraham666]

In school, not much.

Most of my information came from reading U.S. history books. Which kind of shone a rosy light on the whole thing.

For example, one thing never mentioned was that the Colonies wanted the Quebec Act repealed. This Act extended British rights to the French in Canada recently conquered in the Seven Years War. Many of the colonists detested this. They couldn't stand the idea of French Roman Catholics having the same rights as English Protestants.

In some ways, it might be more useful to think of the Revolution as The First American Civil War. Many colonists fought on the side of the British. And each side inflicted real nasty atrocities on each other.

You don't hear about that much.

 

[rgraham666]

Another thing rarely mentioned is that the U.S. was not the first modern democracy.

The first was actually Corsica under Pascal Paoli, A man I regard as great as Jefferson.

 

[Goldie Munro]

In school really nothing apart from how it impacted on the British Empire - but I am old and things might have changed!!

I learnt about it at university and reading!.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Another thing rarely mentioned is that the U.S. was not the first modern democracy.

The first was actually Corsica under Pascal Paoli, A man I regard as great as Jefferson.

Since I don't know anything about either Corsica or Pascal Paoli- I tried to seach it but all the sites I found (save 1) were in French.

I don't speak french, so do you know of any english language sites about it so that I could educate myself a little?

 

[rgraham666]

I only found the one site myself Sweet.

There's a fair bit on Paoli in the book Voltaire's Bastards - The Dictatorship of Reason in The West. That's where I got most of my information from.

Paoli had a very big influence on the Fathers of the Revolution. Many people drank a toast to Paoli on his birthday.

 

[TheEarl]

Sweet - absolutely sod all. When I did history, we learned about the Vikings, Angles, Saxons and Normans (the last time an enemy power managed to successfully invade us!) and we learned about the Tudors and Stuarts and then we learned about WW1 and WW2. Not huge amounts about the British Empire at all in the history curriculum.

The Earl

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Anyway, I was wondering-- what are people in other countries [esp. England] taught in school about the American Revolution?

Here in Portugal, what I remember learning in high-school history about the American Revolution could be summed up as a 2-page subtitle of the French Revolution.

 

[TheEarl]

Just thinking about it - what do they teach American children in history? I mean, you've got the Revolution and the Civil War and WW1 and WW2. Everything newer is too recent and everything older is someone else's history.

Do you get taught English history?

The Earl

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

All history books emphasize certain sections while deemphasizing others. Read a French account of the 100 years War and an English one or a Japanese account of WW2 versus our own. Or better examples, look at our account of both World Wars versus Russia's, France's, or England's.

Losses, embarrassments, or sections of history where ourselves or our ancestors aren't heroes are often slightly edited or just deemphasized for teaching to schools. Our war with Canada during the War of 1812 was a footnote in our texts as was the course of the world wars from the first stalemate to when we finally entered. Our involvement in Japan after Perry. Our brief attempt at imperialism. Such things are hard to find in an American history book.

Regionalisms are also common. In the west, westward expansionism was hailed as the most important event to be focused on for our first American History class.


So yeah, it's to be expected that the British account of the American Revolution would be footnote sized.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

. . . Paoli had a very big influence on the Fathers of the Revolution. . .

The Six Nations Indian Confederacy -- Mohawks, Oneidas, Onondagas, Cayugas, and Senecas and Tuscaroras -- comprised the oldest particiaptory democracy, having maintained theirs for nearly 800 years. Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and other authors of the original United States representative democracy took much inspiration from the laws governing that Indian confederacy of nations.

Between the two influences, just how much was left for the Founding Fathers to originate?

 

[msboy8]

I've been thinking about the American Revolution- despite all of the noble things we've been tought about it, I'm starting to question those motives. Especially in light of having read "Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl" and then reading the Declaration of independence. Never before had I noticed such an emphasis on the monitary reasons for independence- those first stated are mainly about taxes and other things that seem to indicate that the desire for freedom was mainly the desire for the freedom to occumulate great wealth. It seems obvious that the *ideals* of freedom stated were for their own purpose and gain, and not universal as they seem to imply.

Anyway, I was wondering-- what are people in other countries [esp. England] taught in school about the American Revolution?

I've been wondering a bunch, so you'll probably see a few more threads from me

Money is actually behind everything. Even if they are for a noble cause. For example; the Settlement planets revolting against Old Earth in 2204.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

On a related note, how were you (all of you) taught to divide the several ages of the western world? For example, I was taught that:

Antiquity: from the inventions of writing (approx. 5000BC) onwards;
Middle Ages: from the fall of the Western Roman Empire (476AD) onwards;
Modern Age: from the discovery of the maritime route from Europe to India (1498AD) onwards;
Contemporary Age: from the French Revolution (1789AD) onwards.

 

[oggbashan]

I think I went to school (in the UK) many years before the previous respondents.

We were taught about the American Revolution and the politics in the UK at the time. The war did not have popular support and could have been avoided IF the UK politicians had been prepared to allow a compromise that they later offered - after the war had started.

The King's German soldiers from Hanover (he was Elector of Hanover) had to be used in America because many officers of the British Army would rather resign than fight in America. Many officers considered that the colonists had legitimate grievances.

Once the war had started the attitudes hardened. The treatment of those who considered themselves loyal to the King although resident in America was very harsh. There were atrocities on both sides and the Native Americans were used as cannon fodder instead of US or British forces. The Indians suffered more than almost anyone.

As with most history, schools tend to present the issues in sharp contrast. The reality was shades of good and bad on both sides. The French took advantage of the American Revolution to declare war on England (again) to see what they could get out of it and they hoped to win back Canada. Without French assistance on both sides of the Atlantic the US probably would not have won. The injustices suffered by the colonists could have been remedied if there had been sufficient will at Westminster. The US could have been self-governing states within the British Empire many years before Australia and Canada achieved that status.

Rule from Westminster was not really practical in the 18th century. Australia decided many issues for itself from the founding of the first states because communication with Westminster was so difficult. If only... But the world is full of 'if onlys'.

Og

 

[dreampilot79]

History is written by the winners.... Actually I don't think England "Lost" the revolution any more than America "lost" Vietnam.

Mostly they got tired of the headache and dealt with problems elsewhere. They could have won but quit trying, leaving us to claim victory!

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

The position of the Mugwump during the Revolutionary War was quite precarious. That was either a neutral or a non combatant.

They were so called because they were accused of sitting on a fence with their Mug on one side and their Wump on the other.

Another common saying was, “Anyone not fighting in the war has their head in England and their body in the Colonies, so their neck should be stretched.” And it was, all too often.

A bad time for an anti-war movement, or for people like the Quakers, Amish and Mennonite.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Just thinking about it - what do they teach American children in history? I mean, you've got the Revolution and the Civil War and WW1 and WW2. Everything newer is too recent and everything older is someone else's history.

Do you get taught English history?

The Earl

NO- and that made me laugh.

We didn't even learn World History. (although I'm sure it was offered, it was never required)

You'd be suprised. We have a lot of history It's not all about war either. There's 'discovery' colinization, pioneers (going west)/expansion, "Indian Relations" slavery, French and Indian war, Civil war, Civil rights, Woman's Liberation/Sufferage, Industrial Revolution, immigration, Prohabition, the Great Depression, the Roaring 20's, Robber Barrons, changes over time to the constitution, the reapeal of prohibition, ect ect...

BTW- nothing is really 'too new" by the time I was in HS (graduated in 93) Reagan had made his way into the text books (basicly a section of the page but still) Our history books are updated regularly and attempt to draw the present into the picture. (where we have come from, where we are going...). We of course have no 'ancient history.' We don't have much of a respect for ancient history either.

 

[TheEarl]

Our brief attempt at imperialism. Such things are hard to find in an American history book.

Lucifer: I don't suppose you'd furnish me with some examples? I know almost nothing about this part of history; the only one I'm familiar with is American Samoa.

One thing that I hate about American history books (I had the great misfortune to read one whilst I was in Vanuatu) is the fact that WW2 started in 1941. Excuse me, World War 2 did not start in 1941. You might want to ask the Poles, the Germans, the Indians, the Australians, the Canadians, the French, the British and the Belgians what they were doing in 1939 if you're under that impression. World Wars do not start and finish with the USA's participation.

The Earl

 

[sweetnpetite]

And I'm not familliar with the term "sod all" so at first I didn't know whate tate meant.

But from Earls longer answer, I figured it out.

 

[scheherazade_79]

Anyway, I was wondering-- what are people in other countries [esp. England] taught in school about the American Revolution?

We weren't taught anything about such faraway events in Wales. Instead we were spent years being taught about how the English repressed and abused our nation. Far more useful

 

[TheEarl]

NO- and that made me laugh.

We didn't even learn World History. (although I'm sure it was offered, it was never required)

You'd be suprised. We have a lot of history It's not all about war either. There's 'discovery' colinization, pioneers (going west)/expansion, "Indian Relations" slavery, French and Indian war, Civil war, Civil rights, Woman's Liberation/Sufferage, Industrial Revolution, immigration, Prohabition, the Great Depression, the Roaring 20's, Robber Barrons, changes over time to the constitution, the reapeal of prohibition, ect ect...

BTW- nothing is really 'too new" by the time I was in HS (graduated in 93) Reagan had made his way into the text books (basicly a section of the page but still) Our history books are updated regularly and attempt to draw the present into the picture. (where we have come from, where we are going...). We of course have no 'ancient history.' We don't have much of a respect for ancient history either.

Ah, very different attitude in England. To us, anything that is newer than about 50 years old is too new for history. This isn't snobbishness, but more an idea that whilst events are too new, they cannot be studied with a dispassioned eye. There was an acronym we had for the different methods of judging a piece of evidence in history, which I wish I could remember, but all of it was about casting doubt on what you thought had happened. History wasn't the telling of a tale but a criminal investigation, taking each piece of evidence with a pinch of salt and trying to work out what 'really' happened.

The Cold War wasn't in our history books when I finished my GCSEs (2000).

As for the American civil war, the entire period of British Empire tends to be skipped, or at least was when I was at school. I guess they don't want to talk up the Empire before children are old enough to realise the downsides as well as the good that was done. Last thing we need is more BNP recruits.

The Earl

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Lucifer: I don't suppose you'd furnish me with some examples? I know almost nothing about this part of history; the only one I'm familiar with is American Samoa.

One thing that I hate about American history books (I had the great misfortune to read one whilst I was in Vanuatu) is the fact that WW2 started in 1941. Excuse me, World War 2 did not start in 1941. You might want to ask the Poles, the Germans, the Indians, the Australians, the Canadians, the French, the British and the Belgians what they were doing in 1939 if you're under that impression. World Wars do not start and finish with the USA's participation.

The Earl

Spanish American War was heavily related to an attempt to steal some colonies from Spain. We also took the Phillipines as a colony somewhere which is why it was attacked by the Japanese in WW2. I don't know all the rest but I suspect Colly would.

EDITED TO ADD: Yeah, our World War reporting is the worst. We so sugar-coated our role in it that it's easy to see how we are able to look down so much at Russia and France, the two countries who paid the heaviest amount of blood and destroyed land for both wars.

 

[TheEarl]

We weren't taught anything about such faraway events in Wales. Instead we were spent years being taught about how the English repressed and abused our nation. Far more useful

Usually my response would be something along the lines of "I thought Welsh history was all about Barry John and JPR Williams. When Wales used to have a good rugby team. You know, ancient history."

But due to a combination of Gavin "Radioactive Tan" Henson and Andy "Rugby League" Robinson, I'm going to keep my head down.

Praeteritio is a wonderful thing.

The Earl