How are aspects of American History taught outside America?

[SomeGuy]

In the Netherlands here 80s/90s:

Paleolithic era, (not sure we got Mesopotamia), Egypt, Greece, Romans along with Bataves/Gauls/Germans/Frysians, Charlemagne, Normans, Dark Ages, Englightment, Colonisation, Industrial Revolution, Russian Revolution, WWI, the interbellum, WWII, the restoration and then the rest represented as "modern history".

Not really much time left for American history sorry.

 

[Wildy]

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

That depends. It's part of the section on revolution. It's part of the topic calleed "Revolutions and turmoil". As I said before, you only learn about it if the teacher will teach that specific revolution. That topic has four different revolutions that you can learn about, the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolutions, and the Chinese Revolutions. When I did the topic we were taught the Russian and Chinese Revolutions but nothing on the French and American revolutions because we only needed to learn about two (but we learned about four *technically*) revolutions for the comparative essays.

 

[enjoytheview]

My situation is very similar to Wildy's
I studied history from yrs 7 to 10, and there was no mention of US history. There was also very little mention of Australian history, but that's another matter.

In terms of the later years, there's a course called History: Revolutions (basically the same thing Wildy mentioned, but each state sets a different curriculum so there will be some differences) where each school picks 2 revolutions out of the 4 to study. The United States is on that list, although at my school the teachers chose to study the Russian and French revolutions. Last year, the American revolution was the least popular. For the 4 sections of the paper, the US was written about by 11%, 11%, 7% and 6% of students respectively. (in contrast, Russia was 37%, 38%, 48% and 47%)

The stats above were quoted from the 2006 Revolutions Assessment Report

The first part of the yr12 political studies course I took this year was called "Washington to Canberra" and it was a comparison of the politics of Australia and the United States. The first week or so of that course focused on the differences between the two countries in terms of relations with Britain, so for much of that week we learned about Australian Federation and the US War of Independence. Aside from that, I never learned anything about US history in school.

 

[Wildy]

My situation is very similar to Wildy's
I studied history from yrs 7 to 10, and there was no mention of US history. There was also very little mention of Australian history, but that's another matter.

In terms of the later years, there's a course called History: Revolutions (basically the same thing Wildy mentioned, but each state sets a different curriculum so there will be some differences) where each school picks 2 revolutions out of the 4 to study. The United States is on that list, although at my school the teachers chose to study the Russian and French revolutions. Last year, the American revolution was the least popular. For the 4 sections of the paper, the US was written about by 11%, 11%, 7% and 6% of students respectively. (in contrast, Russia was 37%, 38%, 48% and 47%)

The stats above were quoted from the 2006 Revolutions Assessment Report

The first part of the yr12 political studies course I took this year was called "Washington to Canberra" and it was a comparison of the politics of Australia and the United States. The first week or so of that course focused on the differences between the two countries in terms of relations with Britain, so for much of that week we learned about Australian Federation and the US War of Independence. Aside from that, I never learned anything about US history in school.

So you guys don't learn too much about Australia as well huh? I think I learned more about Federation then I did about the Colonial Period. I think the most relevant internety way of describing it would be this:

Phase 1. First Fleet (1788)
Phase 2. ???
Phase 3. Federation (1901)

Even then we learned very little regarding our state (I only found out more recently that initially what is now South Australia was once called Pieter Nuyts Land, but I did know that the French Maps named basically everything after Napoleon.

I learned more about my own state from reading book on it in my own free time. I can tell you some things that might make you sick...

 

[ixolite]

Specifically I'm wondering how things like the American War of Independence or Civil War are taught outside of America.

Not much, only on a sidenote in Germany (Berlin) of the 80ies and 90ies.

We've had "stoneage", mesopotamia, egypt, greece and rome, middle ages, renaissance, 30year-war, prussia, french revolution, napoleon, (german) revolutions of 1848, german empire, WW I + II.

 

[volatile]

It seems that even asking the question about the teaching of American history outside of America is somewhat myopic.

Being such a young country, American history classes must, almost by definition, cover large periods of the history of other countries. You're used to learning the history of foreign nations. By contrast, countries like Britain, Switzerland and even Germany (young, but teleologically old) have so much going on in their own histories that to spend even more than a cursory amount of time on the history of other nations is practically impossible.

I understand, of course, that the American Civil War is the defining event of American history. Unfortunately, for the British (and even less so for the Germans and Swiss), it's just one event in a very, very long history of events, many of which are of arguably equal importance but are equally elided (hell, we barely covered the English civil war, and nothing at all on the Boer War or the Wars of the Roses).

The history of America, and the American Civil War in particularly, just isn't as important or interesting beyond the US as it is (and should be) within it.

 

[Flo]

It seems that even asking the question about the teaching of American history outside of America is somewhat myopic.

Being such a young country, American history classes must, almost by definition, cover large periods of the history of other countries. You're used to learning the history of foreign nations. By contrast, countries like Britain, Switzerland and even Germany (young, but teleologically old) have so much going on in their own histories that to spend even more than a cursory amount of time on the history of other nations is practically impossible.

It would be nice if even a cursory amount of time was spent at least hinting that countries other than Switzerland and its immediate neighbors (France, Italy, Germany, and maybe Austria) have any kind of history worth hearing about. I just checked with a younger colleague, and it appears that the teaching of history hasn't improved since my time ...

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I understand, of course, that the American Civil War is the defining event of American history. Unfortunately, for the British (and even less so for the Germans and Swiss), it's just one event in a very, very long history of events, many of which are of arguably equal importance but are equally elided (hell, we barely covered the English civil war, and nothing at all on the Boer War or the Wars of the Roses).

Oh, please tell me the War of the Roses was at least discussed in English class when Richard III came up.

Please.

Lie to me if you have to.

 

[volatile]

It would be nice if even a cursory amount of time was spent at least hinting that countries other than Switzerland and its immediate neighbors (France, Italy, Germany, and maybe Austria) have any kind of history worth hearing about. I just checked with a younger colleague, and it appears that the teaching of history hasn't improved since my time ...

A serious question - given there is a finite time available for the teaching of basic history to schoolkids (pre-14), which parts of Swiss history should they not learn about in order to make room for the long, intricate and fascinating histories of France, Germany and Austria? Given that no time can be made available, something has to be taken out. What do you propose that is?

 

[volatile]

Oh, please tell me the War of the Roses was at least discussed in English class when Richard III came up.

Please.

Lie to me if you have to.

Richard III isn't a pre-14 set text, as far as I know. We did Julius Ceasar and Macbeth... We also did To Kill a Mockingbird, so we got *some* instruction about America.

 

[Flo]

A serious question - given there is a finite time available for the teaching of basic history to schoolkids (pre-14), which parts of Swiss history should they not learn about in order to make room for the long, intricate and fascinating histories of France, Germany and Austria? Given that no time can be made available, something has to be taken out. What do you propose that is?

The myths about Wilhelm Tell and the intricate details of the activities of the three Swiss on the Grütli prairie. We get told about the neighbors (at least about the bits where the Swiss are looking good). What we are never, ever told is that there were whole civilisations outside of those 5. I'm not asking that the kids learn about the details of the foundation of the Bagdad califate or the intricacies of the Ming dynasty judicial system, but a hint about the existence of the rest of the World would be nice.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

A serious question - given there is a finite time available for the teaching of basic history to schoolkids (pre-14), which parts of Swiss history should they not learn about in order to make room for the long, intricate and fascinating histories of France, Germany and Austria? Given that no time can be made available, something has to be taken out. What do you propose that is?

All history is fascinating. While I grant you that Swiss kids need to learn about the history of their country, the world doesn't stop at their borders. In my school in the U.S. I had about half of my history classes on U.S. history, and half on everywhere else. Maybe I'm baised because that is how I was taught, but it seems a 50/50 time split is better than learning about one's own history to the exclusion of all others.

 

[volatile]

All history is fascinating. While I grant you that Swiss kids need to learn about the history of their country, the world doesn't stop at their borders. In my school in the U.S. I had about half of my history classes on U.S. history, and half on everywhere else. Maybe I'm baised because that is how I was taught, but it seems a 50/50 time split is better than learning about one's own history to the exclusion of all others.

I agree, to an extent - especially that all history is interesting. I'm assuming (maybe falsely) that you don't cover much if any American history prior to Columbus, and spend most time post-1700? That's 300 years. British History (as taught) goes back at least to 1066, a whole six-and-a-half centuries longer than American history, and packed with events and people who had just as much impact on the current state of our nation as the American Civil War did.

There just isn't as much time in a pre-14 European history curriculum as there is in an American one to cover the histories of foreign countries. Of course, the best history courses should always contextualise events in global contexts, but the OP, as far as I can tell, was about compulsory history education, which in the UK is barely 150 hours. I'd guess from the posted curricula of Switzerland and Germany that the periods spent teaching compulsory history are comparable with that.

Don't get me wrong - I'm certainly not belittling foreign events as unimportant and coming over all colonialist and introspective. It's just that, well, which bits of British history should we not teach at a very basic level in order to shoehorn in more stuff about America, or China, or India, or Austro-Hungary or the Ottoman Empire etc. etc? There's already too much stuff about British history that there isn't time to teach.

 

[Susan Gerbic]

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.

I would think that Canada would spend some time on the American Revolution because the Colonists and the British were fighting over its territory. Obviously I wasn't really paying that much attention that day, but I do know that there were some nasty battle fought trying to get into Quebec.

The French and Indian wars also were important in Canada's history.

Being the close neighbor that Canada is, there should be lots of overlap and discussion about our combined history. Mexico sharing a big border also should have a lot of mixed history discussions. When we take a California History class we do combine a lot of what was going on in Spain and Mexico at the same time. I would think that all the states along the Mexican border would do the same, especially Texas.

As far as Australia goes, they were barely mentioned. The land link isn't there.

Susan

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I'm assuming (maybe falsely) that you don't cover much if any American history prior to Columbus, and spend most time post-1700?

Actually, my American History class spent a good month on Pre-Columbian societies, and early colonization in South America and Mexico. My history teacher felt that since so much of later U.S. history is wrapped up in Western Hemisphere affairs that we should at least know the Aztecs from the Maya, and Bolivar from Castro.

That's 300 years. British History (as taught) goes back at least to 1066, a whole six-and-a-half centuries longer than American history, and packed with events and people who had just as much impact on the current state of our nation as the American Civil War did.

I had a one year course on European History concurrently with a course of U.S. history, and we covered quite a lot about English history, especially from the sixteenth through nineteenth century. What you say about contextualizing holds true. Without a good understanding of English aiffars of the time, the early history of the American colonies seems truly bizarre. Likewise, I think Swiss students would have a very cockeyed view of the world without learning about how the USSR rose and fell, Germany nationalized, or the U.S. belatedly entered the Second World War. History is a stage crowded with characters, all of whom have their own stories and their own modivations. Without taking pains to show students that those people are just as complex as the people of your own country, it becomes easy to reduce them to sterotypes.

Don't get me wrong - I'm certainly not belittling foreign events as unimportant and coming over all colonialist and introspective. It's just that, well, which bits of British history should we not teach at a very basic level in order to shoehorn in more stuff about America, or China, or India, or Austro-Hungary or the Ottoman Empire etc. etc? There's already too much stuff about British history that there isn't time to teach.

I could easily turn that around and ask, "What part of the British involvement in the structure of the Modern Middle East should be neglected?" "What part of the British role in the formation of the only superpower on the planet should be ommited?" "What part of the British conquest and ejection from India, an object lesson in the futilitity of Empire, should British children not learn?" Even looking at history through a British lens, so much of the world is influenced by, and influences on British affairs that I can hardly think of any region that would be ommited in an education about British history that at any point looks away from the Isles.

 

[volatile]

Actually, my American History class spent a good month on Pre-Columbian societies, and early colonization in South America and Mexico. My history teacher felt that since so much of later U.S. history is wrapped up in Western Hemisphere affairs that we should at least know the Aztecs from the Maya, and Bolivar from Castro.



I had a one year course on European History concurrently with a course of U.S. history, and we covered quite a lot about English history, especially from the sixteenth through nineteenth century. What you say about contextualizing holds true. Without a good understanding of English aiffars of the time, the early history of the American colonies seems truly bizarre. Likewise, I think Swiss students would have a very cockeyed view of the world without learning about how the USSR rose and fell, Germany nationalized, or the U.S. belatedly entered the Second World War. History is a stage crowded with characters, all of whom have their own stories and their own modivations. Without taking pains to show students that those people are just as complex as the people of your own country, it becomes easy to reduce them to sterotypes.



I could easily turn that around and ask, "What part of the British involvement in the structure of the Modern Middle East should be neglected?" "What part of the British role in the formation of the only superpower on the planet should be ommited?" "What part of the British conquest and ejection from India, an object lesson in the futilitity of Empire, should British children not learn?" Even looking at history through a British lens, so much of the world is influenced by, and influences on British affairs that I can hardly think of any region that would be ommited in an education about British history that at any point looks away from the Isles.

I agree with you, pretty much 100%. I for one would like to see more on the colonial period, for the reasons you mention. That said, please remember that this was compulsory history, 4 hours a week, for three years. There simply isn't time in the jam-packed British curriculum as is for two concurrent courses of British and World history. Of course all history is necessarily intertwined with all other history, and that's especially true from a British point of view. We're talking about basic, high-school history that doesn't even count towards a GCSE (graduation). Also, bear in mind that historical topics crop up in geography, English, foreign languages, classical languages (where studied), PSE etc. as history doesn't happen in a vacuum.

GCSE (14-16), A-Level (16-18) and of course undergrad history courses should, and do, broaden the historical lens to increasing degrees. Going back to the OP though, I just don't think it's worth spending much if any time on the complex and colourful and intricate subject of American independence and the American Civil War when we don't even have time to teach the English Civil War(s) properly...

It's a massive shame, of course. I love history as much as anyone. You just have to be realistic about the constraints and indeed aims of curriculum design.

In case you missed it, the sum-total of the current compulsory 11-14 English history curriculum is as follows. I mean, which of those should we curtail in order to teach the American War of Independence (which, I imagine, probably is taught in some places under the non-Europe section)?:

[FONT=&quot]11-12 Medieval England and an Optional unit of pre-1914 Europe (eg. Romans)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]12-13 Making of the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]United Kingdom[/FONT][FONT=&quot] and an optional, Non European unit. (eg Rise of Islam)
13-14 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Britain[/FONT][FONT=&quot] 1750-1900 (Expansion, Trade and industry) and the Twentieth Century World.
[/FONT]

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I agree with you, pretty much 100%. I for one would like to see more on the colonial period, for the reasons you mention. That said, please remember that this was compulsory history, 4 hours a week, for three years. There simply isn't time in the jam-packed British curriculum as is for two concurrent courses of British and World history. Of course all history is necessarily intertwined with all other history, and that's especially true from a British point of view. We're talking about basic, high-school history that doesn't even count towards a GCSE (graduation). Also, bear in mind that historical topics crop up in geography, English, foreign languages, classical languages (where studied), PSE etc. as history doesn't happen in a vacuum.

If the goal is to use limited time to educate students about history then there should be one goal(IMO): Teach students about how major issues that effect contemporary British society arose. Those issues are almost always partly domestic, and partly foreign.

 

[Trakar]

I find this entire discourse fascinating, and very different from my experience. Though I was educated in the US, I attended a variety of private Catholic schools, so I'm really not sure how much my education differed from that of other Americans (quite a bit evidently). We had fairly extensive history classes, both generalized World History that covered general human history and the major events and contributions (with increasing detail as the grade level advanced), and American History with a focus upon colonial and national history. This culminated in the freshman year of HS with a half year class in each subject that was mostly a detailed review of what had been covered the previous 8years in each area, and then branched off into electives in the General History and Sociology and the required US Government and Civics classes. I'm rather shocked to find out that this wasn't common in the US public school systems?!

 

[apmason]

Great question! I am getting certified to teach secondary (8-12 grade) social studies in Texas. I've always wondered how much other nations learn about the U.S. My own knowledge stems from self study and a chunk of public school. My BA in is Government. IMO the teaching of history is a local affair that should rely on external history to the extent that it is needed to understand the events being covered. My role as a teacher is to get the kids basic knowledge up to a standard set by the state. My REAL role is to try and get some of the kids interested in history. I love history and cant picture myself doing anything but teaching and sharing my love for it. To that end I will teach any and all history that the kids will absorb, unless it is woo.

 

[Jorghnassen]

Let me think. The American revolution was about taxes. Some stuff about Loyalists, the rebellious colonies wanting Quebec (Canada/no longer New France, whatever it was called at the time) to join the revolution, which led to the Quebec Act of 1774. And George Washington was a murderer. I think that's about it.

/and we don't call it the "French and Indian war"...