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.

[sgf8]

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, British history 1500-1750 (including the Reformation), Industrial Revolution, WWI, WW2, one non-European case study and one unit on a period of pre 1914 European history (eg Roman era or French Revolution.)

I'm guessing the non-Europe bit is a recent addition.

[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.

[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 (http://vcaa.vic.edu.au/vce/studies/history/revolutions/assessreports/2006/histrevassessrpnov06.pdf)

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 (http://vcaa.vic.edu.au/vce/studies/history/revolutions/assessreports/2006/histrevassessrpnov06.pdf)

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 ... :eek:

[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 ... :eek:

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.

[sgf8]

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 (http://www.schoolshistory.org.uk/curriculum.htm). 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)?:

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

[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.

[TShaitanaku]

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"...

[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. :confused:

[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?

[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 (http://www.ccncgov.com/battle_of_kings_mountain.htm)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.:rolleyes: 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 ... :eek:
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.:D

[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 f-ing 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.;)

[rjh01]

The Crown would not want them getting any ideas.;)

Yes the GG has a tremendous amount of power. Reference the australian constitution.

[Travis]

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 f-ing clue what they're talking about.

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

My own opinion is that referring to the war itself as the War for Independence isn't bad as it is accurate but that the general time period; the lead up to the war, the war, the resolution of the war, the formation of the confederation and finally the creation of the constitution would be referred to as the American Revolution.

[Agamemnon2]

In Finnish history classrooms, I don't think we covered American history much at all. The Boston Tea Party, the Civil War, the Cold War and Vietnam made an appearance, but WW1 and WW2, for example, were handled near-exclusively from a continental European viewpoint.

[The Don]

From my recollections of a 70's and 80's comprehensive education:

Late 1700's - War of beastly ungratefulness
Early 1800's - US has another slap at the UK while we're busy fighting Napoleon
Mid 1800's - US has a bit of a domestic over an issue addressed by the civilised world (i.e. the UK) 50 years before
Late 1800's - US grabs a small foreign empire by following the path of least resistance
Early 1900's - Late for a war against a proper opponent
Mid 1900's - Late for another war against a proper opponent
Mid-Late 1900's - Engages in a standoff against a proper opponent

But I wasn't really paying much attention

[bigred]

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.

:boggled:

Not good.

[Rcintron]

In the Dominican Republic we devoted a whole school year (11th grade) to learn "American History". In this case "american" refers to the continent. We learned about pre-columbus history (incas, mayas, aztecs, tainos, etc.). Later on we learned how american countries freed themselves from different colonizing countries, mainly england, spain and portugal. In our case, interestingly enough, we won our independence fighting the haitians. US civil war was not taught, I guess because we are not USAians, and thus it's not part of OUR history. Their independence fight was taught, along with all other american countries' independence struggles.

[Big Les]

From my recollections of a 70's and 80's comprehensive education:

Late 1700's - War of beastly ungratefulness
Early 1800's - US has another slap at the UK while we're busy fighting Napoleon
Mid 1800's - US has a bit of a domestic over an issue addressed by the civilised world (i.e. the UK) 50 years before
Late 1800's - US grabs a small foreign empire by following the path of least resistance
Early 1900's - Late for a war against a proper opponent
Mid 1900's - Late for another war against a proper opponent
Mid-Late 1900's - Engages in a standoff against a proper opponent

But I wasn't really paying much attention

:D I read an account from an army surgeon in the Peninsular War only yesterday, and he comments on the situation in North America in one of his 1812 letters, saying (paraphrasing):

"I trust that they will soon sue for peace, but I do hope that we shall have the opportunity to give them a sound thrashing at a later date".

Classic.

[aries]

Let me say this on the topic: The film "The madness of King George"movie and some of the other films covering that area in the 1700's have done a lot better explaining the early history of the US than my formal school education has (1970'sand early 1980's).
At least in Denmark.

I also seem to remember a certain movie series, featuring a male trapper and his native american wife, being aired on Danish TV in the 1970's. Huge public success. "Roots" were also a success here in Denmark, and it taught us about slavery in the US. In short, I have learned more from movies and books (like novels and such) on US history that I was thought at school in Denmark.

European and Danish history were sort of a requirement, though...

[Lensman]

I also seem to remember a certain movie series, featuring a male trapper and his native american wife, being aired on Danish TV in the 1970's. Huge public success.

That was probably "Centennial" - excellent TV.

[Kestrel]

That was probably "Centennial" - excellent TV.

Like Michner's other works, it's not an exact history but an impression of history. Names, places, times and details have been changed, but it's close to what did happen. Watching Centennial will give you a good understanding of the people that settled this part of the American West, why they came here and the conflicts that happened.

[Tokenconservative]

From everything I've seen and read and heard over the years the simplest answer is: a damn sight better'n they are taught INSIDE America.

By far.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Like Michner's other works, it's not an exact history but an impression of history. Names, places, times and details have been changed, but it's close to what did happen. Watching Centennial will give you a good understanding of the people that settled this part of the American West, why they came here and the conflicts that happened.

Did you ever read that one he wrote about a failed British expetition to cross the Yukon (?) in the middle of winter.

Can't recall the title, but boy is it good.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

USian history is taught in US schools about as well as world history is.

My daughters were in an AP World History class in which the "teacher" decided to forego ANY mention of the Middle Ages in Europe/Asia over learning about Chinese (I kid you not) poetry of about the same period.

Yep...because that had so much more impact on world history than what was going on in EuropeEurasial in that time.

Tokie

[aries]

That was probably "Centennial" - excellent TV.

Yes, thank you :) That was it. The thing 'centennial' is called 'the colorado saga' in Danish since it takes place in - you've guessed it - Colorado...

I don't know accurate the history in it is, but as I said it was a huge success...

[LostAngeles]

USian history is taught in US schools about as well as world history is.

My daughters were in an AP World History class in which the "teacher" decided to forego ANY mention of the Middle Ages in Europe/Asia over learning about Chinese (I kid you not) poetry of about the same period.

Yep...because that had so much more impact on world history than what was going on in EuropeEurasial in that time.

Tokie

And in my Honors Western Civ. class we skipped over Babylon, India, and Egypt and went right into a bit of Greece and all Rome.

Because Babylon, India, and Egypt are entirely irrelevant to Western Civ, right?:rolleyes:

[suicidesamurai]

Then there is the American Civil War. How much of it, it's causes, battles and results is taught?In the US we are just taught the Civil War was fought to "free the slaves."

Very noble thing to do, so that is how the government wants you to hear it.

[JoeEllison]

In the US we are just taught the Civil War was fought to "free the slaves."

Very noble thing to do, so that is how the government wants you to hear it.

Well, it certainly WAS fought over slavery, so I'm not sure what your exact point is.

[Tokenconservative]

And in my Honors Western Civ. class we skipped over Babylon, India, and Egypt and went right into a bit of Greece and all Rome.

Because Babylon, India, and Egypt are entirely irrelevant to Western Civ, right?:rolleyes:
It would appear so...in the infinite wisdom of that teacher, I guess.

Now, I realize you are trying to shriek "raaaacccciiisstttttttt!!!" here (I am not a complete dunderhead) but you are apparently so stupid, you've missed the point: Chinese poetry, while it might help explain some aspects of Chinese culture at the time, is not something on which an AP WORLD HISTORY class should spend 3-4 weeks, regardless of how much it makes the "teacher" wet himself.

He is going to spend NO time of the music and religious art of Europe...which has had a greater impact on WORLD HISTORY...the music and religioius art of Europe or Chinese poetry?

I'll give you some time to research your answer....

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

In the US we are just taught the Civil War was fought to "free the slaves."

Very noble thing to do, so that is how the government wants you to hear it.

LOL! My kids were taught that the US was just as much to blame for the Imperial Japanese attempt to expand their EMPIRE (key term) into US-held territory in the Pacific...and to eye the US itself, as were the poor, downtrodden, frightened Japanese.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Well, it certainly WAS fought over slavery, so I'm not sure what your exact point is.

No, it wasn't. That was the final catalyst for it, but the American Civil War was fought over the Constitutional issue of whether US states could, willy-nilly claim they are no longer a part of the US.

Turns out the answer is...no.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Yes, thank you :) That was it. The thing 'centennial' is called 'the colorado saga' in Danish since it takes place in - you've guessed it - Colorado...

I don't know accurate the history in it is, but as I said it was a huge success...

I never liked the series, but the book is very good.

And largely accurate vis a vis the water issue out here in the Wild West. It's surprising to people who live in places where the stuff just seems to fall out of the sky on their heads, just HOW important water is, and while lots and lots of Weterns were written about that very subject, most people still don't "get" it.

It's why Americans who grew up here in the Western US undestand how/why the water issue in Isreal is so important, whereas Americans east of the Missouri River scratch their heads over it.

Tokie

[suicidesamurai]

Well, it certainly WAS fought over slavery, so I'm not sure what your exact point is.My point is that the matter was much more complicated than simply "freeing the slaves." There were cultural divides, taxes and tariffs, State's rights, and the issue of secession. The slavery issue was largely about whether or not slavery could expand out West, not whether or not the North should use force to end slavery. They wanted to use federal powers to fight slavery, and the Southerners argued they had no Constitutional right to tell states what to do.

[Wildy]

In the US we are just taught the Civil War was fought to "free the slaves."

Very noble thing to do, so that is how the government wants you to hear it.

My point is that the matter was much more complicated than simply "freeing the slaves." There were cultural divides, taxes and tariffs, State's rights, and the issue of secession. The slavery issue was largely about whether or not slavery could expand out West, not whether or not the North should use force to end slavery. They wanted to use federal powers to fight slavery, and the Southerners argued they had no Constitutional right to tell states what to do.

I think that this quote from The Simpsons says it best:

Proctor: All right, here's your last question. What was the cause of the Civil War?
Apu: Actually, there were numerous causes. Aside from the obvious schism between the abolitionists and the anti-abolitionists, there were economic factors, both domestic and inter--
Proctor: Wait, wait... just say slavery.
Apu: Slavery it is, sir.

It's a bit sad when you consider that it looks like there was only one factor in the whole event.

[Tokenconservative]

I think that this quote from The Simpsons says it best:

It's a bit sad when you consider that it looks like there was only one factor in the whole event.

It's the same as anti-Americanists who shriek that the US was doing nothing--NOTHING!!--abouit the Holocaust during the war, and that that is evidence of how eeeehhhhhvvvviiiilllll the US _really_ is.

Actually, it's pretty clear that FDR knew about what was going on, but had a hard time believing it. Meanwhile, he had an entire world to save from BOTH the Nazis and the Japanese (who were engaging in a holocaust of their own that made the Nazis look like amateurs). The issue was stopping them both and EVERYthing they were doing.

Lincoln was less interested in "freeing the slaves!" than in keeping the Union whole. He wanted to send every black in America back to Africa, after all and was a man of his times who probably felt that blacks were indeed an "inferior" human, at best.

But the complexities of the war escape both "teachers" of history in our public schools who barely (if at all )themselves understand how our government functions to say nothing of the history that got it where it is today, and these complexities do not fit nearly as neatly into the modern, PC boundaries as the leftists who run our schools demand: you can't boil it down to a few platitudes and slogans, so they've decided it must be about freeing the slaves, since such an issue is very PC.

You can't call Lincoln the hero who "freed the slaves!" if you know that slavery was but one among dozens of issues for which the American Civil War came about and was, probably, inevitable.

Tokie

[Wildy]

Well as I said earlier in this thread, the US Civil war was used more to teach us critical thinking skills (that's why I continued with Modern History in year 12, that and because it was easy), and it also showed us how events in history are more complicated then people usually think.

[JoeEllison]

The reason for secession was so that the Southern states could maintain slavery. That was the complex, underlying reason... to pretend that the whole thing wasn't about slavery is a blatant and rather foolish lie, especially when the states themselves declared that they were seceding for the purpose of slavery.

[Big Les]

To say that it was more complex than just one issue is no lie, Joe. No war (of that scale) in history can be pinned down to any one simplistic cause. You can probably argue the case for it being a trigger or tipping point. But not cause, in the historical sense.

[JoeEllison]

To say that it was more complex than just one issue is no lie, Joe. No war (of that scale) in history can be pinned down to any one simplistic cause. You can probably argue the case for it being a trigger or tipping point. But not cause, in the historical sense.

Nope, cause. Of course, American history books teach it in a softer, less offensive way, so that the people who still live in the traitor states don't have to feel so bad that their forefathers committed treason to maintain their right to own other people.

[suicidesamurai]

Nope, cause. Of course, American history books teach it in a softer, less offensive way, so that the people who still live in the traitor states don't have to feel so bad that their forefathers committed treason to maintain their right to own other people.I live in a "traitor state" and I don't care who my ancestors were or what they did. I know some even owned slaves, and I couldn't care less! To feel bad about that would mean I have some sense of pride or shame in "my" history, but I don't. I rely only myself, not folksy history and collectivist pride.

That being said, secession isn't traitorous. It's not trying to destroy your country or fight against it. It's just trying to step away from it. The Constitution did not say they couldn't secede, therefore they had the right to. The Founding Fathers would more than likely advocate such actions, since they knew the federal government could one day becoming overbearing and rebellion or secession would be needed. And ever since the Union won that war, it has been nothing but federal usurpation of power.

[Damien Evans]

Yes the GG has a tremendous amount of power. Reference the australian constitution.

The Australian Constitution is a stupid near worthless piece of paper which portrays New Zealand as a state, WA as independent and doesn't even mention the prime minister.

So please, DON'T reference the Australian constitution.

[Tokenconservative]

Well as I said earlier in this thread, the US Civil war was used more to teach us critical thinking skills (that's why I continued with Modern History in year 12, that and because it was easy), and it also showed us how events in history are more complicated then people usually think.

Which is far more than USian kids are taught at that level.

Here, "critical thinking" is taught as "criticizing the hegemony"--hegemony being, most particularly, the "righwing hatemongers" in the current national administration, and then the larger "racist patriarchy" under which American wymyn and "original peoples" suffer each and every day.

The Civil War is taught as a one-issue war: the eeeehhhhvvvviiilllll South wanted to have slaves and the only slightly less eeehhhhhvvvilllll North did not, so the North kicked Southern ass to stop them from having slaves.

No "clash of differing socio-economic and political systems," no "state's rights" issues...just that. Lincoln, a worldly, liberal (modern sense) sophisticate wanted to free the slaves (lie) and all the backward, toothless, redneck cracker hicks in the South, since all of them owned slaves, wanted that to happen.

Simple, easy for stupid American kids to learn after 12 straight years of being dumbed down---but taught how to apply a condom and which homosexual sex positions are the best.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

I live in a "traitor state" and I don't care who my ancestors were or what they did. I know some even owned slaves, and I couldn't care less! To feel bad about that would mean I have some sense of pride or shame in "my" history, but I don't. I rely only myself, not folksy history and collectivist pride.

That being said, secession isn't traitorous. It's not trying to destroy your country or fight against it. It's just trying to step away from it. The Constitution did not say they couldn't secede, therefore they had the right to. The Founding Fathers would more than likely advocate such actions, since they knew the federal government could one day becoming overbearing and rebellion or secession would be needed. And ever since the Union won that war, it has been nothing but federal usurpation of power.

As a Yankee, by affiliation, I'd have to agree. While I agree that it would've been a very bad idear for the North to have allowed this to happen, there was nothing in the Constitution that said nuh, uh girlfren'...oh no, you don'!

So actually, Lincoln's waging a war to prvent it was just another of his un-Constitutional acts.

Tokie

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Nope, cause. Of course, American history books teach it in a softer, less offensive way, so that the people who still live in the traitor states don't have to feel so bad that their forefathers committed treason to maintain their right to own other people.

I wonder why Lincoln only freed the slaves in the "traitor" States if the war was about slavery?

Why did the northern States get to keep their slaves if the war was to remove slavery?

The Emancipation Proclamation (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/emancipation_proclamation/transcript.html)

That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.

[Tokenconservative]

I wonder why Lincoln only freed the slaves in the "traitor" States if the war was about slavery?

Why did the northern States get to keep their slaves if the war was to remove slavery?

The Emancipation Proclamation (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/emancipation_proclamation/transcript.html)

Sigh. I hate refighting the Civil War even more than I do WWII or Vietnam (which we won at Tet).

That whole "Mason-Dixon Line" was the thing. I don't recall the year...this stuff bores me to tears, actually. But states north of there had no slaves--by law--states south of there did. There were no slaves to free in the North.

So Lincoln didn't have to free the slaves that didn't exist in the north.

Maybe that was an oversight on his part.

Maybe it's just that he wasn't an idiot?

Tokie

[JEROME DA GNOME]

So Lincoln didn't have to free the slaves that didn't exist in the north.

Incorrect. Not many slaves left, but there were slaves in the north.

Northen slavery (http://www.slavenorth.com/)


When the Northern states gave up the last remnants of legal slavery, in the generation after the Revolution, their motives were a mix of piety, morality, and ethics; fear of a growing black population; practical economics; and the fact that the Revolutionary War had broken the Northern slaveowners' power and drained off much of the slave population. An exception was New Jersey, where the slave population actually increased during the war. Slavery lingered there until the Civil War, with the state reporting 236 slaves in 1850 and 18 as late as 1860.

[Damien Evans]

Sigh. I hate refighting the Civil War even more than I do WWII or Vietnam (which we won at Tet).

That whole "Mason-Dixon Line" was the thing. I don't recall the year...this stuff bores me to tears, actually. But states north of there had no slaves--by law--states south of there did. There were no slaves to free in the North.

So Lincoln didn't have to free the slaves that didn't exist in the north.

Maybe that was an oversight on his part.

Maybe it's just that he wasn't an idiot?

Tokie

Interesting historical revisionism there. I suppose that means Vietnam is capitalist then?

[Wildy]

The reason for secession was so that the Southern states could maintain slavery. That was the complex, underlying reason... to pretend that the whole thing wasn't about slavery is a blatant and rather foolish lie, especially when the states themselves declared that they were seceding for the purpose of slavery.

So Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri (I'll admit they were sort of both during that time) and West Virginia (Ok, they unseceded), were all free states then? And Tennessee, because it was occupied by Union forces, was omitted from the Emancipation Proclamation even though it was part of the CSA.

Interesting historical revisionism there. I suppose that means Vietnam is capitalist then?

Actually he is sort of right there. Tet resulted in a rather decisive US/RVN/Allied victory that set back the DRVN/VC quite a bit, in the case of the VC it decimated their ranks and required them to terrorise civilians more to get them to join them.

With the fierce fighting at Hue and the reports from members of the media embedded with the troops helped to turn the opinion of Tet in the US not as a decisive US victory, but as a decisive NVA victory. In a way it's sort of what happened with Hezbollah in the last Israel-Lebanon conflict (except that it was a ceasefire). Depending on who you listened to the media helped to fuel the opinion that it was a victory for Hezbollah (although some said Israel).

However, as you so rightly pointed out, the US didn't win. When the US finally was forced to leave the NVA attacked and wiped out ARVN units and swept through the country finally capturing Saigon and uniting Vietnam under Communist rule.

[Tokenconservative]

Incorrect. Not many slaves left, but there were slaves in the north.

Northen slavery (http://www.slavenorth.com/)

OMG!!!

You're right!!!! Everything else I've ever said or believed is utterly wrong!!!!!!!


Sheesh.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

Interesting historical revisionism there. I suppose that means Vietnam is capitalist then?

Hmm....no idea why you would think that.

The NVA generals said, after the war, that we'd completely crushed them at Tet; VC were wiped out and the North had no way to get materiel into the South...on top of that, they went to the peace talks only after Tet.

They said they knew their only hope was to delay long enough to rebuild their supply capability, and to let the American press do its job.

Which they did.

And the rest is history.

BTW: your being woefully ignorant of something and ignorantly happy to believe the propaganda does not make that something so. It just makes you woefully ignorant and ignorantly happy.


Tokie

[LostAngeles]

It would appear so...in the infinite wisdom of that teacher, I guess.

Now, I realize you are trying to shriek "raaaacccciiisstttttttt!!!" here (I am not a complete dunderhead) but you are apparently so stupid, you've missed the point: Chinese poetry, while it might help explain some aspects of Chinese culture at the time, is not something on which an AP WORLD HISTORY class should spend 3-4 weeks, regardless of how much it makes the "teacher" wet himself.

He is going to spend NO time of the music and religious art of Europe...which has had a greater impact on WORLD HISTORY...the music and religioius art of Europe or Chinese poetry?

I'll give you some time to research your answer....

Tokie

Actually, if you want a short, concise history of the world, Guns, Germs, and Steel is really the way to go. If you're doing World History, it's best to take a look at as much as you can and be exposed to some influential stuff you haven't seen.

Most American kids ave been exposed to European poetry and music in their music and literature classes, but not Chinese poetry which effects and is a result of Chinese thought which may help to explain the Chinese's interaction with other countries, the Boxer Rebellion, the communist revolution, and their current status in the world today. If you haven't noticed, China is a major world economic, military, and political power. It's our sole rival as a superpower.

The literature and arts of a country demonstrate the mindset of the country in question. This can be a simple, but effective way of placing the student in the shoes of the people at the time who would have heard/read this stuff. Hence why such texts as Dante's Inferno, Milton's Paradise Lost, The Ramayana, The Arabian Nights, and The Art of War are often studied by students of world history.

World history is not simply about the Europeans. To really get a good grasp on it, you also need to know about what the Europeans encountered and why that helped them to then dominate the country.

If you want them to just hear about the Europeans, I'm sure there are European history classes they can take post-secondary, not to mention independent research. The point of a world history class is to put the current state of the world in greater context and that means learning something about nearly everyone, or at least, the greater powers in the world today.

[Corsair 115]

With the fierce fighting at Hue and the reports from members of the media embedded with the troops helped to turn the opinion of Tet in the US not as a decisive US victory, but as a decisive NVA victory. In a way it's sort of what happened with Hezbollah in the last Israel-Lebanon conflict (except that it was a ceasefire). Depending on who you listened to the media helped to fuel the opinion that it was a victory for Hezbollah (although some said Israel).It all comes down to how one defines victory it seems to me. There's military victory and then there's a public relations victory; there's tactical victory and then there's strategic victory. You can have a tactical victory but a strategic defeat for example.

[ChaoticLimbs]

Geez, all of my public High School and private Elementary School history teachers were inhuman taskmasters.
We had to cover Sumeria, Mesopotamia, Egypt, Rome, The Ottomans, Greece, the Normans, the Saxons, the Gael, Inca, Aztec, China, India, the Mongols, Japan, Ethiopia, Nubia, exploration of the American West, The Civil War, Mexican independence from France, World War I, II, Vietnam, The Cold War, the Falklands war, Banana republics and US interventionism, The Philippines, and South African Apartheid. Also The Dark Ages, the Renaissance, and the New England Witch Hunts. For each topic section, I wrote a five page report. I had to do three dioramas of historical events in High School. Got 3 new sets of shoes out of the deal. Wanna see an Inca sports stadium in a Reebok box?
I either had the best teachers ever or worst teachers ever. At the time I figured it was the latter.

[Wildy]

It all comes down to how one defines victory it seems to me. There's military victory and then there's a public relations victory; there's tactical victory and then there's strategic victory. You can have a tactical victory but a strategic defeat for example.

True.

Like most things it seems that it is all how we classify something.

[Travis]

Geez, all of my public High School and private Elementary School history teachers were inhuman taskmasters.
We had to cover Sumeria, Mesopotamia, Egypt, Rome, The Ottomans, Greece, the Normans, the Saxons, the Gael, Inca, Aztec, China, India, the Mongols, Japan, Ethiopia, Nubia, exploration of the American West, The Civil War, Mexican independence from France, World War I, II, Vietnam, The Cold War, the Falklands war, Banana republics and US interventionism, The Philippines, and South African Apartheid. Also The Dark Ages, the Renaissance, and the New England Witch Hunts. For each topic section, I wrote a five page report. I had to do three dioramas of historical events in High School. Got 3 new sets of shoes out of the deal. Wanna see an Inca sports stadium in a Reebok box?
I either had the best teachers ever or worst teachers ever. At the time I figured it was the latter.

Actually that sounds a lot like my own High School experience. Frankly I'm grateful for it because it really helped me in school after that.

[Damien Evans]

Hmm....no idea why you would think that.

The NVA generals said, after the war, that we'd completely crushed them at Tet; VC were wiped out and the North had no way to get materiel into the South...on top of that, they went to the peace talks only after Tet.

They said they knew their only hope was to delay long enough to rebuild their supply capability, and to let the American press do its job.

Which they did.

And the rest is history.

BTW: your being woefully ignorant of something and ignorantly happy to believe the propaganda does not make that something so. It just makes you woefully ignorant and ignorantly happy.


Tokie

Erm, no. The US/South Vietnam did not win the war at the Tet offensive. They virtually wiped out the attacking force, but they did not win the war. It continued for several