How are aspects of American History taught outside America?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

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?

[tongue in cheek]Perhaps a few extra geography lessons would have established that "England" is a very strange term to use in this context[/tongue in cheek]

You mention the relationship established during WWII - at the same time as the US were providing aid, many other countries (Soviet Union, India, France, Australia, New Zealand) were also providing support and/or fighting alongside the British army. They would have at least as strong a case to argue that the strong relationship thereby formed means their history should be covered and it is simply impossible to do that in the time available.

From memory my history lessons (Scotland, 80's) consisted of:

Scottish wars of independence, industrial revolution, WWI and the period between the wars. US was probably mentioned more in relation to the latter than any other (depression etc).

There is a current debate on whether we teach enough Scottish history:

http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.1857734.0.past_papers.php

But I think the key factor is:

"The major scandal about history teaching is the limited time available for the subject. On average, pupils in S1 and S2 get 50 minutes of history a week."

With such limited time, there will inevitably be huge pressure on what is covered.

 

[Radrook]

[tongue in cheek]Perhaps a few extra geography lessons would have established that "England" is a very strange term to use in this context[/tongue in cheek]

You mention the relationship established during WWII - at the same time as the US were providing aid, many other countries (Soviet Union, India, France, Australia, New Zealand) were also providing support and/or fighting alongside the British army. They would have at least as strong a case to argue that the strong relationship thereby formed means their history should be covered and it is simply impossible to do that in the time available.

From memory my history lessons (Scotland, 80's) consisted of:

Scottish wars of independence, industrial revolution, WWI and the period between the wars. US was probably mentioned more in relation to the latter than any other (depression etc).

There is a current debate on whether we teach enough Scottish history:

http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.1857734.0.past_papers.php

But I think the key factor is:

"The major scandal about history teaching is the limited time available for the subject. On average, pupils in S1 and S2 get 50 minutes of history a week."

With such limited time, there will inevitably be huge pressure on what is covered.

I understand the difference between using Great Brittain and using England. But I chose to use England because I consider it more specific to the people I am referring to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_people

Actually, my statement was in response to the claim that absolutely no American history is mentioned. I understood that to be in Grammar school. To people here in the USA, that seems strange. Sorry if I offended.

BTW

Weird HTML

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I understand the difference between using Great Brittain and using England. But I chose to use England because I consider it more specific to the people I am referring to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_people

Actually, my statement was in response to the claim that absolutely no American history is mentioned. I understood that to be in Grammar school. To people here in the USA, that seems strange. Sorry if I offended.

BTW

Weird HTML

Offended? Nah.

Not quite sure what the wiki link is meant to highlight - could you expand?

The reason I thought it odd to use England in that context rather than British is that the two World Wars probably represent the time when the feeling of being "British" in preference to English, Welsh etc. was at its highest point. It is therefore probably the area where using the terms English/British interchangeably probably seems most strange to me.

 

[egslim]

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.

I had six years of history (Netherlands, late nineties). From what I remember we treated three subjects involving the US: Rise of the US from an agricultural society to an industrial one, WWII and the Cold War.

Other chapters included some Greek and Roman history, the Dark Ages, Dutch Golden Age, colonization, decolonization, liberalization, and various historical periods from neighbouring countries that played an important part. Fascism, communism, French revolution, post-WWII Germany.

The overall tendency was "colonization bad, decolonization good", so the American War of Independence would probably have been viewed positively. But American history before 1865 was pretty much an empty page, and the American Civil War was only mentioned in passing as a starting point for the chapter about the rise of the US as an industrial society.

 

[mummymonkey]

I did History in High School in the late 70's. Relating to the US we were told about:
Christopher Columbus (In fourteen hundred and ninety two ...) - explorers
Pilgrim Fathers- religious persecution
Boston Tea Party - taxes and representation
Civil war & Abraham Lincoln - slavery
That's about it.

 

[mummymonkey]

The overall tendency was "colonization bad, decolonization good", so the American War of Independence would probably have been viewed positively.

How did the war result in decolonization?

 

[Rob Lister]

How did the war result in decolonization?

Independence, sovereignty. Poor use of the term decolonization.

 

[CFLarsen]

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?

During lunchtime, on Monday the 2nd week of 3rd grade.

The American Civil War is just one blip on the radar. How can it be anything else?

 

[egslim]

How did the war result in decolonization?

It didn't, but since the tendency was to consider colonization, ergo the existence of colonies "bad", a change of status from colony to that of independent nation would probably have been considered "good" in class.

If you consider the American Civil War from a foreign perspective, it changed almost nothing. Before, there was a sovereign nation that partly allowed slavery, after there was a sovereign nation that no longer did. The changes in relations between the federal and state governments had almost no foreign significance. And slavery was already on the way out anyway. In addition, as an isolationist nation at the time internal US politics had almost no bearing on other nations.

If the South had won the conflict it would probably have gotten more attention in history classes.

 

[Kestrel]

I did History in High School in the late 70's. Relating to the US we were told about:
Christopher Columbus (In fourteen hundred and ninety two ...) - explorers
Pilgrim Fathers- religious persecution
Boston Tea Party - taxes and representation
Civil war & Abraham Lincoln - slavery
That's about it.

My High School history classes a few years earlier were similar. History ended sometime after the Civil War and before anyone alive had been born.

My classmates had heard rumors that a World War had been fought and a Great Depression had occurred early in the 20th century, but these were never discussed. Most of them had learned about the Second World war by watching old John Wayne movies.

As an avid reader, I managed to fill the gap. Others did it by watching TV specials about history. But many Americans know little about the great events of recent decades.

 

[Foolmewunz]

As an American, I moved around a lot as a kid. Public schools in New Orleans 1-6, then Catholic school in 7th grade, then 3 different public school systems in 8th and 9th (New Orleans, Memphis, and Tulsa) and 10/11/12 in New York City.

I loved history, and the great thing was that every time I switched schools it seemed that they were covering the curriculum from the previous year, but with different textbooks and teachers. So I got a pretty well-rounded history of the USA. In total, we covered Pre-Colombian civilizations, Age of Exploration and Colonization*, the two 18th century wars, and then great amounts on the establishment of the US and particularly on the first seventy-five years with all the various elements that were to ultimately lead to the Civil War. We also covered the 20th Century fairly well, up to WWII.

What I found most lacking was the coverage of the post Cvil War period. This was the period when America was heading up to its own membership in the Empire Club, and much of the growth of the country and change in its attitudes was during this huge industrial buildup. Yet it's not covered very well, other than the carpetbaggers and reconstruction period.

As to World (Non-USAian) history, we started with the "fertile crescent", Egypt, segue to Greece then Rome, into the disolution of the Roman Empire, then lots of quaint history of the Middle Ages and Crusades, Renaissance, Age of Exploration, Industrial Revolution, et al.

Interestingly, we learned almost nothing of British history in the World History syllabus. All British history was taught in the U.S. history classes, as background material as to where we all came from, and what movements in England and Europe had formed the underlying philosophies of the colonists.

*I don't know if colonization is covered today to the extent it was in my history courses. It seems we spent almost a year on the topic in grammar school in New Orleans (this is 10/11 years old for non-Americans). We knew who the original colonists were, how they were ceded their grants or territories, what their interests were, where they came from, etc...

 

[Oliver]

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

Ditto here in Germany - at the same time. I remember Columbus
and Slavery being mentioned. Maybe there was more about
America - I don't remember.

I wonder what the Middle-East learns about America in School.

 

[Oliver]

*bump* for other people in non-American countries.

 

[genesplicer]

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

Well England does have a bit more history to cover than the United States. I think that most countries will cover "Other Countries" only as they relate the their native country.

Think about History classes in the US. Do we cover any country in depth, unless it relates in some way to what we are learning about the US? (I'm speaking in modern terms here, not ancient history or the like.)

 

[latent aaaack]

I'm starting to get why non Americans are so annoyed by references to the 'founding fathers' since US history is such a blip on the radar and their own history is less dramatic but more of a process of gradual change.

 

[Jensen]

A lot of very important stuff happened in the US. Most of it, however, in the last 100 years.

I'm guessing most "old" countries in the world have had at least one civil war. How much does US kids learn about civil wars hundreds of years ago in foreign countries?

 

[Metullus]

I was an army brat so I attended more schools than I have fingers...

In elementary school we studied US history from Columbus to date; prehistory, ancient history and Western Civilization; and English history 1066 - present.

In high school we had classes in 19th century European history (which started in the 18th century with the French Revolution and ended in the 20th century with the beginning of WWI); modern European history (WWI - WWII - Cold War); African colonial history; and the Civil War.

 

[GreNME]

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

Why do you think that was?

Because there was a more important and longer war in that time period for British national history. I'm actually more surprised we in the US don't get as part of our coursework on the Revolutionary War more emphasis on why that actually contributed to us winning instead of getting stomped.

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.

See above. There was a far more important war with France going on almost simultaneously (though not quite). Far more relevance to British history.

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.

That's the US perspective. From the British perspective, Churchill was the one inspiring even nations overseas (like the US) who had not determined to get involved to give England aid in their defiance of the German blockade. The whole context changes when you look at it from a British nationalist perspective (for neither better nor worse, just different PoV).

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

None from any Brits I've known. I recall quipping back and forth with them a bit and noticing how PoV really does change drastically the attitude on the subject:

Me: "Hey, sorry about laying such a spanking on old King George."

Friend: "No problem... sorry we burned down your White House last time we fought."

I actually found it interesting that an otherwise fairly US-centric and nationalistic professor in a college-level US history class decided to point out Andrew Jackson's mistake behind the Battle for New Orleans and Jackson's overtly racist (toward Native Americans) attitudes. The prof was otherwise a rather centrist-leaning conservative who tended to avoid painting US historical figures in a less-than-flattering light-- he even firmly asserted the honorable nature of General Lee, even while simultaneously arguing that the Civil War was about slavery despite arguments to the contrary that sometimes crop up.

Well England does have a bit more history to cover than the United States. I think that most countries will cover "Other Countries" only as they relate the their native country.

Think about History classes in the US. Do we cover any country in depth, unless it relates in some way to what we are learning about the US? (I'm speaking in modern terms here, not ancient history or the like.)

Very few that I know of do. Sadly, I hear too often of history either being mostly secondary on the curriculum or glossed over to get to somewhat politicized topics or periods.

 

[Travis]

I really appreciate the responses from everyone. I'm interested because I'm thinking of going back to school to become a history teacher. It's my opinion that history is incredibly important due to the fact that it provides "context" to... well just about everything. After all everything--math, science, politics, economics, language, music-- has "history" behind it. In these turbulent times of ours understanding the history of things is important. How can one truly understand modern South Africa without understanding what it went through during apartheid, how can one understand apartheid without understanding the Boer Wars and how can one understand the Boer Wars without understanding European colonization and the great African Land Grab?

Honestly trying to understand complex issues like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without knowing the history behind everything is like watching the third film in a trilogy without having previously seen the first two films. You might get some of what is going on but understanding the underlying motives behind things would always be murky, speculative and prone to emotional irrationality.

To that end I've always felt that History needs to be both emphasized more and revamped in it's method of instruction. Too often it's presented simply as a narrative with things happening the way they did simply because that's the way they were supposed to happen. Wars are often given maybe a sentence or two on why they happened with the rest of the material being all about what happened during the war. A better way would be to offer up more analysis behind what happened. Who was behind things? Why did they do what they did? What else might they have done? How did it effect other things later on?

Of course that's just my opinion on the matter.

 

[GreNME]

I really appreciate the responses from everyone. I'm interested because I'm thinking of going back to school to become a history teacher. It's my opinion that history is incredibly important due to the fact that it provides "context" to... well just about everything.

I agree emphatically, and it first caused me to choose to go back to school to get a degree in history to become a teacher. I'll warn you, though: I wound up stopping, not because I gave up on learning history, but because I've been finding that getting into it to be a teacher may not be the wisest choice at this time. While teachers in the "harder" sciences (biology, for instance) are having their own hard time recently with political and pedagogical struggles, the same is happening to the "softer" sciences in the humanities field. Of course, I wound up coming to Texas and I'm quickly reaching the point where I don't even want to risk trying to become a teacher here, so depending on where you live your situation might differ.

Also, a warning: there are a lot of people apparently vying for "history teacher" jobs on the primary school level, and a lot of history teachers stay in their jobs for a long time. It's a difficult subject to break into a career in education for us newbies, unfortunately.

Of course that's just my opinion on the matter.

I agree with a lot of your opinion, too. What level and focus are you thinking of studying?