How are aspects of American History taught outside America?

[malbui]

My €0.02... I did all my schooling in England and after wandering through chunks of stuff from the Stone Age, through the Romans, Angles and Saxons to the Norman Conquest, we settled down at age 13 and spent the three years upto O-Level (yes, I'm that old) wading through European history from 1714 to 1914. And while we were given a global framework in which to place things, we didn't touch on US history any further than to note that the US broke away in the 1770s and decided to fight amongst themselves for a while.

 

[Broes]

I am from the netherlands and got the default history package.

The US independence war and civil war were mentioned and covered in maybe about 30 minutes and I think I could be certain to say that 95% of the europeans don't even know the difference between the civil and the independence war in the US.
Sad note maybe on my side, most things about the US civil war I learned from the series "North and South" when I was 15 years old.

You have to keep in mind that European history is far more extensive then the couple of hundred years that the US has been around.

If you are upset about Europeans not being informed enough about US history, then keep in mind that US citizens are hardly educated in European history. I have met a fair share of Americans and most of them can't even tell the different countries apart ("Denmark? Isn't that the capital of Amsterdam?") and even less of it's history ("WW2? Yes, you were about to speak german so we came over and kicked nazi butt!").

 

[jimbob]

1066 And All That, W. C. Sellar and R. J. Yeatman: (1930)

Chapter 44

The Boston Tea Party

One day when George III was insane he heard that the Americans never had afternoon tea. This made him very obstinate and he invited them all to a compulsory tea-party at Boston; the Americans, however started by pouring the tea into Boston Harbour until they were quite Independent, thus causing the United Stated. These were also partly caused by Dick Washington who defeated the English at Bunker's Hill ('with his little mashie', as he told his father afterwards).

After this the Americans made Wittington President and gave up speaking English and became U.S.A and Coloumbia and 100%, etc. This was a Good Thing in the end, as it was a cause of the British Empire, but it prevented America from having any more History.

The scary thing is, that I am sure I remember that particular history lesson, as a prelude to the French revolution, and the Napoleonic Wars...


ETA: "1066 And All That", is

A Memorable History of England
comprising all the parts you can remember,
including 103 Good Things,
5 Bad Kings, and
2 Genuine Dates

 

[jimbob]

Actually, I do also remember being taught a bit about the Civil War, especially Sherman's March through Georgia, the Underground Railroad, and the statement that the Union were fighting primarily against Secession as opposed to against slavery.

 

[Giraffe107]

I did history from 1998-2000 (Years 8-10) in Queensland, Australia.
As far as American (ie, US) history goes, we didn't cover a lot. We briefly covered the war of independance, but definatley not any of the battles or an indepth look at the politics. It was more in the context of the animosity between France and England, and the French revolution. Other than that, certainly the US involvment in WW2 in the Pacific- interestingly, we learned more about the aftermath in Japan than the war itself. Everything I know about the civil war I know from the Simpsons.
Other than that, we did prehistory, WW1 from the Australian perspective (Gallipoli in particular), the Boer War, the middle ages in Europe including the reformation, the British Raj (this one was very popular with the boys because the textbook had a black and white photo of a guy getting beheaded), Egypt, and some Australian history.

 

[Travis]

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

Well it's all so interesting. I might have to get back to you on that.

 

[Ove]

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.

I started scool in 1965 i Denmark and that covers what we were taught quite nicely but off course we were told that Columbus was the SECOND discoverer of America, "Leif den Lykkelige" was there a long time before. We were also taught about Ben Franklin and his silly "playing with kites in a thunderstorm" idea and i distinctly remember reading Uncle Toms Cabin and Tom Sawyer in scool. But off course we also talked a lot about the space programme and i clearly remember sitting one night trying to get a decent picture on our old B/W television while Neil took that first step.

 

[CFLarsen]

But off course we also talked a lot about the space programme and i clearly remember sitting one night trying to get a decent picture on our old B/W television while Neil took that first step.

Me too.

Everybody was watching.

Everybody.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

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

ditto for me - from the sixties and seventies. From what I remember the american war of independence was some huge mistake by a bunch of colonials who missed out on the true delights of Yorkshire pudding and who sucked up to the <spit> French.

 

[Garrette]

ditto for me - from the sixties and seventies. From what I remember the american war of independence was some huge mistake by a bunch of colonials who missed out on the true delights of Yorkshire pudding and who sucked up to the <spit> French.

The War of Bloody Ungratefulness?*

*Not original to me.

 

[Big Les]

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.

I agree, and going further back it still makes sense to use "Britain". After all, at one point it was a Scotsman held the life of no less than George Washington himself in his hands, and (though he didn't realise who he had a shot at at the time) he refused to fire because it would be ungentlemanly.

We were taught nothing about American history at school. You have to do the right A-Levels (final year of school or further education college, ages 16-17) to have a crack at that.

In fact I badly need to catch up, since I help look after a collection that has a fair few artefacts of the American wars.

 

[Travis]

Me too.

Everybody was watching.

Everybody.

But...But that was an American taking those first steps on the moon and according to the European Intellectual POV (thank you Oliver) Americans are so stupid as to be "unfit for life."

Why would everybody be watching an accomplishment by someone "unfit for life."

 

[Ove]

But...But that was an American taking those first steps on the moon and according to the European Intellectual POV (thank you Oliver) Americans are so stupid as to be "unfit for life."

Why would everybody be watching an accomplishment by someone "unfit for life."

No no you got it wrong. That started when you elected that old B-movie actor to president. It improved again with Bill but then you elected George Jr.....
Back in the 60's americans was considered to be quite intelligent, off course you had to proove us wrong....

 

[Father Dagon]

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.

But CSA was a sovereign nation, right? Didn't it have a foreign policy as well?

 

[bigred]

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

? "so-called?"

the guy who said "all men are free and equal" was a slave owner,

I give up: who is this?

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.

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.

Way to disprove your own statement in the same post.

Here is question I have for you, why should the rest of the world take US history over their own history?

? Why do you seem to think anyone is suggesting this?

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.

Certainly. All fair statements.

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 ...

I have a great fondness for Switzerland, but they are the very definition of myopia, near as I can tell.

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.

Many Americans in your neck of the woods, perhaps.

Good grief. This thread is both interesting yet appalling at the same time - eg appalling that at least cursory coverage of major events of most or at least many "major" countries (eg US, GB, Russia, France, Spain, China, etc etc) isn't a mandatory part of any school child's education. For crying out loud....I had in-depth history classes in US history by 5th grade and other countries the year or so after......we went from Stone Age to modern day. No every big event/war certainly wasn't covered in depth, but from what I can gather here it was light-years ahead of what many of you have experienced.

Yes American history was given more time/depth than others, and yes, I would expect similar for others (ie much more on their own country), in fact probably more, for reasons given (simply more history to cover).

 

[Travis]

No no you got it wrong. That started when you elected that old B-movie actor to president. It improved again with Bill but then you elected George Jr.....
Back in the 60's americans was considered to be quite intelligent, off course you had to proove us wrong....

Well I was cryogenically frozen when those things happened so I declare that I share no fault in proving you wrong.

 

[Travis]

? "so-called?"

Back when I was still a University student I got grief from some European students who declared that the American Revolution wasn't really a "revolution" because a "revolution" is when a mistreated poor lower class rises up and massacres their ruling class in an awful bloodbath. I contended that was a fairly narrow way to look at a "revolution" but they were insistent that America's birth was too bloodless, organized and civil to be a true "revolution."

Since they were just about the only European students I studied with (there was that girl from the Netherlands who called America "the land of the Unfree") I figured that perhaps it was a common foreign opinion that it should be called the American War of Independence and not the American Revolutionary War.

 

[bigred]

So you genuflected to mindless aholes that you're much more intelligent than? That's very sad.

One thing I have little patience for is Europeans who arrogantly rip on America/its past just because it's the "cool" thing to do.....but worse, haven't the faintest ◊◊◊◊◊ clue what they're talking about.

America has its share of stupidity/stupid people, but we're FAR from having a lock on it.

 

[Kestrel]

Good grief. This thread is both interesting yet appalling at the same time - eg appalling that at least cursory coverage of major events of most or at least many "major" countries (eg US, GB, Russia, France, Spain, China, etc etc) isn't a mandatory part of any school child's education. For crying out loud....I had in-depth history classes in US history by 5th grade and other countries the year or so after......we went from Stone Age to modern day. No every big event/war certainly wasn't covered in depth, but from what I can gather here it was light-years ahead of what many of you have experienced.
Yes American history was given more time/depth than others, and yes, I would expect similar for others (ie much more on their own country), in fact probably more, for reasons given (simply more history to cover).

My complaint was not that we didn't cover history in depth, but that recent history wasn't covered at all. Too much time was spent on long dead emperors, kings and generals at the expense of learning about what happened in the last few decades.

A good example of that showed up recently, when White House press secretary Dana Perino (b. 1972) admitted that she had never heard of the Cuban Missile Crisis when a reporter referred to it in a question.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

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

The Crown would not want them getting any ideas.