How are aspects of American History taught outside America?

[Travis]

Specifically I'm wondering how things like the American War of Independence or Civil War are taught outside of America. Now the War of Independence did involve a lot of countries so I'd imagine it'd have to be covered to some degree but I'm curious as to how extensively it's covered and what the tone of that teaching is. For example it could be taught as "a bunch of whiny colonists didn't want to pay high taxes" which might not be right but may be taught somewhere.

Then there is the American Civil War. How much of it, it's causes, battles and results is taught?

Examples or excepts from non-American text books might be relevant as a lot of teachers will teach from the texts.

 

[Susan Gerbic]

Interesting question. There is a book on this called "History Lessons" the author took textbooks from around the world and looked at how other countries taught/teach US History.

Susan

 

[Radrook]

It all depends on what country is doing the teaching and its historical relationship with the USA-whether as victim, partner, or neutral. In certain previously colonized places, such as Puerto Rico, for example, USA history was presented always in a very positive manner. All interventions justified via noble motives, all seemingly unfair treatments provoked by the victims, etcetera. All of course done for the purpose of helping those who are colonized to feel proud of their status. So proud, in fact, as to be pathogically fanatical and broach no opposing opinion. So it all depends where it is being taught and why.

 

[quixotecoyote]

It all depends on what country is doing the teaching and its historical relationship with the USA-whether as victim, partner, or neutral. In certain previously colonized places, such as Puerto Rico, for example, USA history was presented always in a very positive manner. All interventions justified via noble motives, all seemingly unfair treatments provoked by the victims, etcetera. All of course done for the purpose of helping those who are colonized to feel proud of their status. So proud, in fact, as to be pathogically fanatical and broach no opposing opinion. So it all depends where it is being taught and why.

You do realize Puerto Rico is part of the USA, right?

 

[Darat]

Never even mentioned in any of the history lessons I had at school. (England seventies and eighties).

 

[Radrook]

Never even mentioned in any of the history lessons I had at school. (England seventies and eighties).

Why do you think that was?

 

[Darat]

We only had compulsory history for 3 or 4 hours a week for the first 3 years of secondary school and there is a lot of history to cover so there would simply not be time to study the history of most countries of the world.

 

[volatile]

I did history from 11-14 from 1991-1995 and we didn't cover any American history prior to WW2 either. Thing's hadn't changed since you left, Darat.

We did Romans, Medieval Britain, World War 2, and that was about it, I think.

 

[e-sabbath]

Seriously? Even American history classes are better than that. Paleolithic era, Egypt, Greece, Rome, Middle Ages, Age of Exploration, Age of Napoleon (With a heavily American slant), and then American history and (some) South American history to the end of WWII, at the very least.

 

[Darat]

I think this is the current national curriculum: http://www.schoolshistory.org.uk/curriculum.htm - quite similar to mine and volatile's history lessons.

 

[volatile]

This was a long time ago, but it really is those three things that stick in the mind. As Darat said, this was about 3/4 hours a week for 3 school years - probably less than 150 hours in total.

ETA: the link Darat posted seems to tally with our recollections - the only compulsory bits of history are Medieval Britain, [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]British history 1500-1750 (including the Reformation), Industrial Revolution, WWI, WW2, one non-European case study and [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]one unit on a period of pre 1914 European history[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] (eg Roman era or French Revolution.)

I'm guessing the non-Europe bit is a recent addition.
[/FONT]

 

[Lensman]

As I remember history, we did The Britons, The Romans, The Angles & Saxons, The Norman Conquest and so on up to about the end of WWII, but next to nothing about any other country except as it impacted on our own history, ie. Napoleon, The War of Independence etc.

ETA:

We started with an introduction to prehistory, ie. the Paleolithic, Mesolithic & Neolithic eras.

 

[Travis]

Intriguing. I would have thought that the American War of Independence would have been taught since Britain was one of the combatants.

Which is covered more in depth, the so-called American Revolution or the French Revolution?

In California both a detailed study of American History and a more expansive World History are compulsory. My particular high school also had requirements beyond the State requirements such as more detailed history of South America and a class on the history of democracy.

 

[Wildy]

Yay. A thread I can relate some experiences in. I don't know if they have changed the curriculum since two years ago but I learned about the US Civil war in year 11 Modern History but they were using it to teach us the analysis of sources rather then most of the event. So all I can remember about the actual period was that the guy who said "all men are free and equal" was a slave owner, the lack of industry in the South helped in their downfall, the Battle of Gettysburg, the turning point in the war, started because Lees army wanted to get the shoes that were stored there, and we watched Cold Mountain. We also learned about the Vietnam War and for some reason it was from a predominantly American viewpoint with the only real time devoted to the Australians was when a Veteran came and spoke to us.

In the year 12 Modern History curriculum you can learn about the American Revolution as part of a comparative study but that depends on whether the teacher will teach that part. Or use that revolution.

 

[Travis]

Yay. A thread I can relate some experiences in. I don't know if they have changed the curriculum since two years ago but I learned about the US Civil war in year 11 Modern History but they were using it to teach us the analysis of sources rather then most of the event. So all I can remember about the actual period was that the guy who said "all men are free and equal" was a slave owner, the lack of industry in the South helped in their downfall, the Battle of Gettysburg, the turning point in the war, started because Lees army wanted to get the shoes that were stored there, and we watched Cold Mountain. We also learned about the Vietnam War and for some reason it was from a predominantly American viewpoint with the only real time devoted to the Australians was when a Veteran came and spoke to us.

In the year 12 Modern History curriculum you can learn about the American Revolution as part of a comparative study but that depends on whether the teacher will teach that part. Or use that revolution.

Interesting. So little is taught about the American Revolution in Australia?

 

[Davidlpf]

In high school I took ancient histiory (Rmans, greeks, middleages), and modern history (mostly french revolution). But living so close to the New Brunswick -Maine border we got PBS really well so I watched a lot of GED programs in the afternoon and alot other on history so I probably know as much or more then the typical US citizen. Here is question I have for you, why should the rest of the world take US history over their own history?
The US has been a major player for the last 50 years or little longer, but the rest of the world have done things as well and are as equal to anything the US has done.
ETA- a lot of Canadian history and the world wars are kind scattered though social studies classes in the first 8 years of school. But each province has it own strandards and what is taught in the schools.

 

[Radrook]

We only had compulsory history for 3 or 4 hours a week for the first 3 years of secondary school and there is a lot of history to cover so there would simply not be time to study the history of most countries of the world.

Of course. That is definitely impractical. But since England and the USA are so closely related, England being referred to as the mother country by Americans since the original colonists were English and left their indelible mark on the United States, a cursory treatment of the Historical relation between these two nations would be expected at the least.

There is also the strong relation between England and the USA during W.W.II when USA aid prevented Nazi Germany from forcing England to submit via a U-boat blockade as well as the lend Lease arrangement which was indispensable for continued resistance. So it just seems rather quaint that the USA would be ignored in this way.


BTW
Is there a certain lingering resentment among Britons for the American Revolution and the War of 1812?

 

[rjh01]

I did not even do history in secondary school. Did something called social studies instead. It was on what was going on in society today.

 

[Zep]

Well, in the late 60's and early 70's, US history was not on the agenda here in Australia at all. Perhaps the US was mentioned occasionally, like when it came to subjects like the Industrial Revolution, WW2 Pacific War, and (strangely) modern art and architecture history.

But the US War of Independence, or the US Civil War? Nope. Only "advanced" students of history came close to that in school. We still did English and European history, particularly modern European history.

At the time, however, "US history" was happening very near to us - Vietnam was only a few hours away by air, and we got the same TV coverage as the US did, plus many GI's on R&R. It was also the advent of the "international TV news broadcasts" (especially with the Apollo space missions), so US current affairs started to figure strongly. Space-race, Vietnam, Kent State, goodbye Nixon...

 

[Flo]

In Switzerland in the 70s and 80s, we were taught about the Paleolithic era, Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, Rome (mostly the parts about how Caesar couldn't completely subdue the Helvetes), Middle Ages (mostly how the Swiss people valiantly fought against oppressors like the Habsburg who pretended to prevent them from ambushing travellers throught the Alps), the Renaissance (mostly the important part the Swiss took in it), the French revolution (and the important part the Swiss guards took in it), Napoleon's wars (and how he dared invade parts of Switzerland and how the Swiss freed themselves), then WWI and II (and how the Swiss valiantly guarded their borders against the threats of invasion, all the while remaining neutral and helping those in distress). Geography included global geology, a vague notion of where the main continents and some countries were located, and a wealth of details about the locations of extremely important Swiss landmarks like the Villiger bicycles factory and Hero food canning plant (in Aarau, if you want to know).

America was briefly mentionned as the country some Swiss missfits repaired to (I remember about a Mr Suter who left wife and children to seek his fortune there - but this was from the dreadful "Wir Sprechen Deutsch" language book), and as far as we knew, Asia, Africa, and South America were deserts or jungle with barely a few starving savages trying to survive on handouts given by charitable missionnaries ...

I don't know about now, since my nephews are still young, but I'm looking forward to discover whether and how it's changed since ...

I know it's a little better in France, since my parents, who both were educated in Paris, were sincerely appalled at the Swiss programs and taught me about the rest of the World history and geography, including some of American history.