How do the English view the American Revolution?

[EGarrett]

In America, this is taught in schools as a sort-of mythic birth story, with the English King viewed as a tyranny that was defeated. Not demonized, but certainly not viewed positively either.

How is it taught in England? Is it taught in England?

[Fiona]

No idea how it is taught in England but I do not remember it being taught when I was at school in Scotland. They might have mentioned it but I cannot recall so it was not important, for sure

[Professor Yaffle]

I didn't take history past 3rd year (now year 8) and can't remember anything I learnt.

Here is a page on a schools history site with links for learning about the American Revolution (for year 8 students - about age 14):
http://www.schoolhistory.co.uk/year8links/americanrevolution.shtml

This thread might alo be useful:
http://www.schoolhistory.co.uk/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t6312.html

[learner]

It wasnt taught when I was at school (london, seventies) As far as I can tell its not given a moment thought by anyone. Ive just checked with my 13year old neighbour and she replied "American history, thats to do with cowboys innit".

She will be voting in 5 years time. :eek:

[Lothian]

In America, this is taught in schools as a sort-of mythic birth story, with the English King viewed as a tyranny that was defeated. Not demonized, but certainly not viewed positively either.

How is it taught in England? Is it taught in England?What revolution?

[Professor Yaffle]

What revolution?

I think he's talking about the colonies.

[RoboTimbo]

Tony Blair already apologized to Bill Clinton. Should we be rehashing it?

[ravdin]

The queen spoke in Philadelphia on July 4, 1976 and thanked her former subjects for revolting. I don't recall her exact comments, but she essentially said that we taught the Brits a valuable lesson that helped them hold on to the rest of their vast empire.

The divorce was messy, but we're friends now. I'm not sure what else needs to be said.

[Lab Rat]

I did History up until my A levels (Years 12 & 13), the US was never part of the curriculum I did. It was all magna carter, Henry VIII, WW2, we have so much history of our own to go through without starting on someone elses.
Do you think we view you as ungrateful upstarts? :D

[plumjam]

As I recall, given that we English ruled about 1/3 of the World, the American Revolution was presented to us in class as a small temporary rise in the price of a cup of tea.

[paximperium]

What revolution?
Sorry. We should rephrase.
Did you Brits learn about the American Rebellion?

[paximperium]

As I recall, given that we English ruled about 1/3 of the World, the American Revolution was presented to us in class as a small temporary rise in the price of a cup of tea.
Uh, no. The loss of the American Colonies and the loss British soldiers against a ragtag American Militia was a major blow to the economy of Britain. The colonies owed the crown a huge debt from the prior 7 year war/French-Indian War which was what started the whole taxation issue.

It was one of the costliest war that Britain had fought to that time and involved major battles between the American allied French and British navies.

[geni]

Uh, no. The loss of the American Colonies and the loss British soldiers against a ragtag American Militia was a major blow to the economy of Britain. The colonies owed the crown a huge debt from the prior 7 year war/French-Indian War which was what started the whole taxation issue.

It was one of the costliest war that Britain had fought to that time and involved major battles between the American allied French and British navies.

Well yes but a few years later we had the napolonic wars that kinda put it in context.

[Undesired Walrus]

How do the English view the American Revolution?

With indifference. I don't think anybody but the Nationalists feel they have anything in common with the English of those times. I think the recent, incredibly bloody war between post-colonial Britain and the IRA is more of a hot topic in people's minds.

Funny to often hear Americans call Britons English though, I dare say the Scottish, Welsh and Irish would object to their exclusion in this consultation.;)

[paximperium]

Well yes but a few years later we had the napolonic wars that kinda put it in context.
Partially our fault...American Revolutionary propaganda leaked into the French culture(and was egged on by Thomas Jefferson and others) and the massive loan that the King gave to the US despite the starvation of the people helped push the French into Revolution...we take no credit for Napoleon at all.

[paximperium]

Funny to often hear Americans call Britons English though, I dare say the Scottish, Welsh and Irish would object to their exclusion in this consultation.;)
Actually, Americans are aware of the differences of the English and Irish. Even the Scots are known to be a different peoples(after that whole Braveheart thing) although the Welsh tend to be forgotten.

[Undesired Walrus]

It's strange, I really don't view myself as English, as whenever someone abroad asks where I am from, I reply with 'London'. Jeremy Paxman wrote a book on trying to find out what 'Englishness' meant, if anything. Something we may have to face up to if Scotland devolves completely. From the various World/European cups we have had over my lifetime, I can safely say that English nationalism is the most ugly form of pride there is.

[malbui]

The O-Level History syllabus at my school covered world history 1714-1914 and we spent a while on the American War of Independence. On the whole it was covered very favorably towards the Americans, although this might well have been due to our teacher, who was a bearded, denim-jacketed, fiercely anti-imperialist member of the Socialist Workers' Party, so staunch in his views that when we covered the Whigs and the Tories he refused even to mention the Tories :D.

[Nogbad]

It was a small topic, as the American colonies were not desperately important at that point in time. Britain had a beady eye on India.

We covered the basics. George was as mad as a bucket of frogs. The colonials felt peeved about taxes (who doesn't) and there was a shocking waste of good tea. Also something about colonials dressing up as the Village People to carry out said crime against tea and Tom Paine didn't get the recognition he deserved.

We spent a lot of time on the French Revolution though.

[malbui]

We spent a lot of time on the French Revolution though.


Same here. Our teacher seemed to think that beheading large numbers of aristocrats was a good thing and dwelled at some length on the lessons modern Britain could learn from this.

[Nogbad]

Same here. Our teacher seemed to think that beheading large numbers of aristocrats was a good thing and dwelled at some length on the lessons modern Britain could learn from this.

Strangely enough mine too.

[Architect]

In America, this is taught in schools as a sort-of mythic birth story, with the English King viewed as a tyranny that was defeated. Not demonized, but certainly not viewed positively either.

How is it taught in England? Is it taught in England?


In Britain, geography is taught in schools together with history. This involves a basic understanding of the distinction between Britain - the state which existed after 1707 - and England, a constituent part of said state. You know, in the same way that we get taught the difference between (say) Bavaria and Germany. Or New Jersey and the USA.

How is this taught in America? Is it taught in America?

ETA: Aha, I see someone made the point already...

[Architect]

We spent a lot of time on the French Revolution though.


We spent more time on the 1715 and the 1745, to be honest. IIRC the French Revolution was covered in English, what with all that "Tale of Two Cities" stuff.

[Delvo]

[B]I don't think anybody but the Nationalists feel they have anything in common with the English of those times.It was a small topic, as the American colonies were not desperately important at that point in time. Britain had a beady eye on India.There were a lot of conquered lands in that empire, and I've been told several times by Brits that their entire colonial/imperial history is one big national shame to them because Brits of that time behaved so badly by modern British standards, with their treatment of the world's various natives.

If it's common to present British colonial/imperial history as one big moral narrative about a country going sinister for a while and then coming back to its senses (or getting slapped out of it), then the American Revolution would not make a very good example of that theme, because the revolutionary figures here were too British themselves; it was not a revolt of the original natives against British foreigners. In other words, the American Revolution might make a pretty bad example of the general pattern of that era of history, so it would make more sense to use other examples instead in education, at least at a basic beginner's level.

[Undesired Walrus]

There were a lot of conquered lands in that empire, and I've been told several times by Brits that their entire colonial/imperial history is one big national shame to them because Brits of that time behaved so badly by modern British standards, with their treatment of the world's various natives.


Holding a third of the world captive by the barrel of a gun and running the slave trade? I'd say it is pretty shameful for most Britons.

Gladly though, major cities such as London are now the living quarters of hundreds of cultures who have now retired from the empire. I'm a prime example, as an Irish/Canadian born here as a Briton.

America is often called the land of immigrants. I'd like to call modern Britain the land of newly freed. Almost everyone on the street of a major urban area had ancestors who lived under the rule of the empire.

Thatcher tried to keep a grip on the empire, but Attlee had already set the wheels in motion.

[Architect]

Thatcher tried to keep a grip on the empire, but Attlee had already set the wheels in motion.

Like most of my 5 million countrymen, I've no love of Maggie however inasmuch as most of the former Empire had long since departed by the late 1970s, it's hard to see how Thatcher could meaningfully have "kept a grip".

[JWideman]

To be fair, Americans don't learn about Guy Fawkes.

[The Drain]

It was Margaret Thatcher who gave away Hong Kong.

And, technically speaking, Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) too - the only other British colony besides the US to declare UDI, a unilateral declaration of independence. (Ireland wasn't a colony when the Provisional Republic was declared in 1916, but an integral part of the UK).

But Maggie held onto the Falklands.

PS: The American War of Independence was a draw - I think you'll find that half the continent of North America still has Her Majesty on its coins.

[Undesired Walrus]

Like most of my 5 million countrymen, I've no love of Maggie however inasmuch as most of the former Empire had long since departed by the late 1970s, it's hard to see how Thatcher could meaningfully have "kept a grip".

Perhaps an overreaction. However, I suppose the Fawklands war could be argued to be the last attempt to try and bolster national pride in a dying empire. That and her attitude towards Northern Ireland.

[Delvo]

The American War of Independence was a draw - I think you'll find that half the continent of North America still has Her Majesty on its coins.You must mean Canada, which didn't declare independence with us and didn't fight for it in that war.

[NotJesus]

We covered the basics. George was as mad as a bucket of frogs.

George didn't go mad until much later.

[Thunder]

My English tour guide couldn't get over the fact that we stopped the Brits from taking Albany, by stretching a big fat chain across the Hudson.

:D

[Thunder]

To be fair, Americans don't learn about Guy Fawkes.

yes...why is that?

id like to think its because we would not have viewed the murder of all Parliamentarians as a very nice thing.

[Francesca R]

I think I was taught "Yeah, you win some, you lose some. . . " And that was it :)

[Architect]

Perhaps an overreaction. However, I suppose the Fawklands war could be argued to be the last attempt to try and bolster national pride in a dying empire. That and her attitude towards Northern Ireland.

I'm assuming that you're not arguing that a military junta should be allowed to take the sovereign territory of another state by force in direct and clear contravention of the will of the local people, not even on a rather tenuous argument that they used to own it hundreds of years ago and it's quite handy for the shops, metaphorically speaking.

Likewise whilst Maggie was undoubtedly fighting fire with fire in Northern Ireland, I'm sure you'd agree that until such time as the majority of people in NI want unity with the south - and that day is still some time away - it is quite right for the security forces to take a very tough line with those who prefer the bullet to the ballot box.

To claim that Maggie was interested in Empire is, I think, wrong. UK influence abroad, yes. Empire, no.

[Architect]

yes...why is that?

id like to think its because we would not have viewed the murder of all Parliamentarians as a very nice thing.

Well in all fairness it was the King he was primarily after - pesky Prod that he was - however we get taught is school that it wasn't a very nice thing to do as well.

[Darat]

Well in all fairness it was the King he was primarily after - pesky Prod that he was - however we get taught is school that it wasn't a very nice thing to do as well.

I think it's more accurate to say we are taught that it wasn't a very nice thing to do if you weren't successful and got caught. If you were successful and become the King then it was perfectly acceptable behaviour - "Long live the (new) King!".

To the thread's subject, I think Undesired Walrus summed it up best with the word "indifferent" - it's just another bit of ancient history that we may make a few jokes about. I'd say most folk know very few details about the events, no more than they do about say Waterloo or the Battle of Trafalgar.

[Francesca R]

I'd say most folk know very few details about the events, no more than they do about say Waterloo or the Battle of Trafalgar.Not to be too cynical, but perhaps the Brits teach those in a little more detail for the same reasons that London doesn't have a "Seige of Boston Square" or a "Yorktown Station"

[Lothian]

Not to be too cynical, That would be a pleasant change but perhaps the Brits teach those in a little more detail for the same reasons that London doesn't have a "Seige of Boston Square" or a "Yorktown Station"Oh well, it was the thought that counts.

[Darat]

Not to be too cynical, but perhaps the Brits teach those in a little more detail for the same reasons that London doesn't have a "Seige of Boston Square" or a "Yorktown Station"

My experience is the exact opposite - we don't teach them in any more detail than we do the civil war of the 18th century. Ask most people (excluding public school taught ;) ) who was at the battle of Trafalgar, where it was and what is was about and even in which war it happened and I bet you'll just draw blank expressions.

[Lothian]

My experience is the exact opposite - we don't teach them in any more detail than we do the civil war of the 18th century. Ask most people (excluding public school taught ;) ) who was at the battle of Trafalgar, where it was and what is was about and even in which war it happened and I bet you'll just draw blank expressions.Fortunately I still recall a bit of my school history. I know the 100 year war basics and the key event of the battle of Trafalgar when Captain Drake famously stood on the deck of his flagship the Endeavour and told his troops to ‘let them eat cake’ (cake = slang for cannonballs)

Trouble is kids today don’t learn this stuff all they learn is
(a) (b) (c) (d)
(a) (b) (c) (d)
(a) (b) (c) (d)
(a) (b) (c) (d)
(a) (b) (c) (d)
(a) (b) (c) (d)

[richardm]

Holding a third of the world captive by the barrel of a gun and running the slave trade? I'd say it is pretty shameful for most Britons.

Yeah, it's very fashionable at the moment to be ashamed and to apologise for things that were done hundreds of years before you were born and which you have no control over. What good this is supposed to do beats the hell out of me.

For what it's worth, British history - let's face it, world history, because show me a country where it isn't the case - is pretty much one long list of bloodletting and violence punctuated with some spectacular atrocities. Nevertheless I think it's correct to say that no country did more over the centuries to spread democracy, law and, yes, freedom than Britain. In general, we left the world in a better state than it was when we found it. And if you doubt that, look at the decline of so many countries after the Empire withdrew.

[richardm]

My experience is the exact opposite - we don't teach them in any more detail than we do the civil war of the 18th century.

I think that was certainly the case in my school; we went through revolutions agrarian/French/industrial in moderate detail, made a few mentions of mediaeval happenings, then pretty much pressed onto Modern 20th Century history.

[Francesca R]

My experience is the exact opposite - we don't teach them in any more detail than we do the civil war of the 18th century. Ask most people (excluding public school taught ;) ) who was at the battle of Trafalgar, where it was and what is was about and even in which war it happened and I bet you'll just draw blank expressions.Hmmm, I guess you're right about your experience, since that would be the C17th. ;)

[Francesca R]

Trouble is kids today don’t learn this stuff all they learn is
(a) (b) (c) (d)
(a) (b) (c) (d)
(a) (b) (c) (d)
(a) (b) (c) (d)
(a) (b) (c) (d)
(a) (b) (c) (d)You got a quarter of those right. I am impressed.

[richardm]

Hmmm, I guess you're right about your experience, since that would be the C17th. ;)

Depends on which civil war he's talking about ;)

[Francesca R]

Depends on which civil war he's talking about ;)Not sure about that. The 18th century looks to be pretty civil-war free :)

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

[Darat]

Hmmm, I guess you're right about your experience, since that would be the C17th. ;)

Nope this thread isn't about the 17th century civil war, it's about the one that happened in the 18th century.

[Francesca R]

Which one's that?

[richardm]

Not sure about that. The 18th century looks to be pretty civil-war free :)

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

On the whole it was quite a quiet Century (hem hem).

Tonga just scraped under the bar though, I expect that's what he had in mind :D

[Lothian]

You got a quarter of those right. I am impressed.Excellent 40% is a good mark for me.

[Francesca R]

Excellent 40% is a good mark for me.PS, I thought it was Marie Antoinette about the eating cake thing.

[Darat]

Which one's that?

The one this thread is about....

[richardm]

PS, I thought it was Marie Antoinette about the eating cake thing.

You are right to correct him on this. He also said it was Captain Drake at Trafalgar, when it was actually Admiral Drake as any fule kno. I don't know what they teach them in Scottish schools these days.

[Lothian]

Nope this thread isn't about the 17th century civil war, it's about the one that happened in the 18th century.

Which one's that?

On the whole it was quite a quiet Century (hem hem).

Tonga just scraped under the bar though, I expect that's what he had in mind :D
I think Darat was making a joke following on from his historical ignorance of us Brits comment. Perhaps we could have a flag or something which moderators could use when they are trying to be funny or make a joke. It is so difficult to tell unless they use that box thingy.

[Francesca R]

I think Darat is considering the American Revolutionary war to be a civil one. Which you could say it started out as, since at that point America was not a separate sovereign state and it was a bunch of English fighting the king. However after 4/7/1776 and also the French getting stuck in it was a lot less civil.

On that point, all wars of secession would be initially civil wars, which is useful up to a point (that's why other states tend to wring their hands and say "It's just a domestic--let's keep out.")

[Francesca R]

Nevertheless I think it's correct to say that no country did more over the centuries to spread democracy, law and, yes, freedom than Britain. In general, we left the world in a better state than it was when we found it. And if you doubt that, look at the decline of so many countries after the Empire withdrew.Are you chanelling Niall Ferguson?

Yet the fact remains that no organisation in history has done more to promote the free movement of goods, capital and labour than the British empire in the 19th and early 20th centuries. And no organisation has done more to impose Western norms of law, order and governance around the world.
link (http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/e-h/empire.html)

[Architect]

I think Darat is considering the American Revolutionary war to be a civil one. Which you could say it started out as, since at that point America was not a separate sovereign state and it was a bunch of English fighting the king. However after 4/7/1776 and also the French getting stuck in it was a lot less civil.

On that point, all wars of secession would be initially civil wars, which is useful up to a point (that's why other states tend to wring their hands and say "It's just a domestic--let's keep out.")

Assuming that Darat is referring to the 17th century English Civil War, I'd say he was taking the mickey. However, it does appear that none of you have bothered to classify the 1745 as such an event, despite a fairly substantial force getting as far as Derby.

[Architect]

I think Darat is considering the American Revolutionary war to be a civil one. Which you could say it started out as, since at that point America was not a separate sovereign state and it was a bunch of English fighting the king. However after 4/7/1776 and also the French getting stuck in it was a lot less civil.



(cough) (cough)

[Francesca R]

Bonnie Prince Charlie?

Nah, Derby's way north of Watford ;)

[Architect]

In fact, you can argue that there are effectively a series of major civil conflicts from the Covenantors onwards, culminating in the rather lengthy (if sometimes sporradic) Jacobite uprisings of the early to mid 18th century.

[Francesca R]

In fact, you can argue that there are effectively a series of major civil conflicts from the Covenantors onwards, culminating in the rather lengthy (if sometimes sporradic) Jacobite uprisings of the early to mid 18th century.Sporran (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/sporran.html)-like uprisings? ;)

[Lothian]

In fact, you can argue that there are effectively a series of major civil conflicts from the Covenantors onwards, culminating in the rather lengthy (if sometimes sporradic) Jacobite uprisings of the early to mid 18th century.You could, but Daret clarified his civil war claim to the civil war the thread was about, which I think is the American Revolutionary Civil War of Independence,

[Architect]

Indeed.

[richardm]

Are you chanelling Niall Ferguson?

Never heard of him but it seems he talks sense ;)

[Francesca R]

Never heard of him but it seems he talks sense ;)"Empire" and "Colossus" (http://www.librarything.com/catalog.php?view=Francesca-Rizzi&deepsearch=Niall+ferguson) are great books and both (obviously) have something to say on the Revolutionary War :)

[Ethan Thane Athen]

I think Darat is considering the American Revolutionary war to be a civil one. Which you could say it started out as, since at that point America was not a separate sovereign state and it was a bunch of English fighting the king. However after 4/7/1776 and also the French getting stuck in it was a lot less civil.

On that point, all wars of secession would be initially civil wars, which is useful up to a point (that's why other states tend to wring their hands and say "It's just a domestic--let's keep out.")

In the words of Jeremy Clarkson (when an American guest pointed out that 'We beat you in that one') 'I think you'll find we beat ourselves...with some help from the French'.

Besides, if this thread is anything to go by, it's no wonder 'you' won since you were only fighting the English whereas, going by the signatures on the declaration of independence, you had a few Celts on your side. ;)

[Francesca R]

<--Sort-of not English (Especially if that would mean being on a losing side) ;)

[richardm]

However, it does appear that none of you have bothered to classify the 1745 as such an event, despite a fairly substantial force getting as far as Derby.

One of my ancestors was out in the '45. As a lowlander he initially sided with the English, but then decided to switch to the winning side.

Oops.

So, when does the definition change from "Rebellion" to "Civil War"? Is it purely a matter of scale?

[Darth Rotor]

So, when does the definition change from "Rebellion" to "Civil War"? Is it purely a matter of scale?
In 1861, it was shortly after the Union got its arse handed to it at the Manassas Battlefield, in and around Bull Run. ;)

In Iraq, I'd say the current civil war there began either the day the truck bomb hit the UN HQ building, Auguts 2003, or Fallujah in March 2004. I tend to agree that it's a bit of a thick border, not a laser thin boundary.

DR

[Architect]

Well, if you were a Jacobite in '45 you thought you were turning out for the rightful King, hence it's not a Rebellion........

[richardm]

Well, if you were a Jacobite in '45 you thought you were turning out for the rightful King, hence it's not a Rebellion........

Mm, but you were also trying to overthrow the existing governing regime, so that would be classed as a rebellion.

Mind you I don't think the distinction is vital :p

[Francesca R]

Terrorist?

[Architect]

Decent battle tactics would have been vital, but alas.......

[JimBenArm]

So, if we said "Oops, sorry about all that!", would you take us back?

[richardm]

So, if we said "Oops, sorry about all that!", would you take us back?

Probably not. Since we started using Australia as our penal colony we haven't really missed North America much.

:runaway

[applecorped]

To be fair, Americans don't learn about Guy Fawkes.

Not unless you count V for Vendetta.;)

[Cuddles]

Trouble is kids today don’t learn this stuff all they learn is
(a) (b) (c) (d)
(a) (b) (c) (d)
(a) (b) (c) (d)
(a) (b) (c) (d)
(a) (b) (c) (d)
(a) (b) (c) (d)

I'm not sure that's the problem so much as there's just too much history. The way it's taught probably doesn't help matters, but no matter how well you teach it you will always have to focus on some things and ignore others entirely. For example, at GCSE we had three main topics to focus on. In my class that was Nazi Germany, America after WW2 and the connections between Wales and the Spanish civil war. We covered a few other topics along the way, but those three things took the best part of two years, and even then they were hardly covered in depth.

The point is, you just can't cover all of history, no matter how long you have to teach it, and generally you only have a few years at most. Clearly what people think is important is going to vary. Is it really a problem if you don't know anything about the battle of Trafalgar but learn about the slave trade? Or don't cover the civil war (whichever one you like) but learn about the causes and effects of WW2? If a person doesn't know the details of certain events that doesn't mean they're uneducated or ignorant, it might just mean they learned about something else.

There's also the point that a lot of history is pretty much pointless unless you happen to be interested in it. It's all very well learning all the monarchs of the UK, England, France or whatever it happened to be called at the time, and learning all their children, religion, favourite colours and so on, but unless it's relevant to something else, it's all just a list of names and numbers. That's not useful in the slightest. It's said that those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat its mistakes, but that's only true if you're actually learning about the mistakes, and if those mistakes are relevant today. Exactly what mistake are those who fail to learn that George I ruled from 1714-1727 condemned to repeat? And I very much doubt that colonising America and charging them too much for tea is a mistake that we'll make again in the near future, even if children don't learn anything about the American revolution.

[Soapy Sam]

I never quite understood what we were doing, burning the white house in 1812.

I suppose Napoleon was busy retreating from Moscow, so we just needed a war to keep our hand in.

[JimBenArm]

I think they just wanted to help with some redecorating.

[The Drain]

I'm not sure that's the problem so much as there's just too much history.

The point is, you just can't cover all of history, no matter how long you have to teach it, and generally you only have a few years at most. Clearly what people think is important is going to vary.


True.

What's more, the 'same' history can be taught in dramatically different ways. Here in Northern Ireland, the "men of 1916" either fought in Dublin against the British for the rights of small countries (Catholic schools) or fought for the rights of small countries at the Battle of the Somme on the Western Front (Protestant schools).

And when I was travelling through Namibia in 1986 (then called South West Africa) I stayed with a young German-speaking dairy farmer and his family who referred to "the last War". When I asked which 'last war', he said the one which ended in 1916...

By way of explanation, forces from British-ruled South Africa successfully conquered German-ruled South West Africa in 1916 in the middle of the first World War. So for the German colonists - and their modern day descendants - that was the end of the Great War and what's more (for them) there never was a second World War.

History can look so different depending on what it's done to your current position.

[EGarrett]

In Britain, geography is taught in schools together with history. This involves a basic understanding of the distinction between Britain - the state which existed after 1707 - and England, a constituent part of said state. You know, in the same way that we get taught the difference between (say) Bavaria and Germany. Or New Jersey and the USA.

How is this taught in America? Is it taught in America?

ETA: Aha, I see someone made the point already...If I asked how it was taught in Britain, then people may reply with explanations of how it's taught in other countries that are irrelevant to the view I actually want. Thus, I ask specifically about England.

[Lothian]

If I asked how it was taught in Britain, then people may reply with explanations of how it's taught in other countries that are irrelevant to the view I actually want. Thus, I ask specifically about England.The answer for Britain is the same as England and you already have had the answer. However I will explain it again.
In Britain there is no single examination broad and no single syllabus. Schools sign up to an examination board, such as Edexcell.

Edexcell have two history syllabus's. If you go here (http://www.edexcel.com/quals/gcse/gcse09/history/b/Pages/default.aspx) you can down load the teachers guide which details the subjects covered.
e.g.

Our Modern World History
now has four units, each worth 25% of the final marks:
An outline study
A Depth Study
A Source Enquiry
A Controlled Assessment topic.

There then follows a list of subjects (you will need to open the PDF file) the candidates can choose from for each segment. If you are lucky at the end of the process Edexcell might even mark the exam for you in time for you to choose A levels.

In Edexcel History A the American revolution is not covered
In Edexcel History B the American revolution is not covered

I suspect the same is true for most examination boards although one or two may in a 10 year period have it an an option you will be lucky to find someone from England who has studied it in any depth as part of their formal education.

[shadron]

Which one's that?

Francesca, the 18th century lasted from 1701 to 1800. We're in he 21st, now.

Comment about Canada: we didn't have much to do with "losing" Canada during the rev war; it was lost in he war of 182, more accurately. Besides, it's at least half French; who'd want to try to teach all them American?

[mummymonkey]

We were taught that The USA is a nation of stolen land built on the backs of slaves.

[shuttlt]

I am English (I see myself as British, but that's another post), and to add my 2 old pennies, I don't know that I feel very strongly one way or the other about the American revolution. It's a thing that happened to a bunch of old dead people none of whome I've met. In as much as I feel any personal connection, it is with the Enlightenment position of the revolutionaries.

There is a strong, but by no means universal, current in English (as opposed to Scottish, Welsh and Irish) culture away from nationalistic interpretations of history.

Incidentally, we let you win.

[The Drain]

There is a strong, but by no means universal, current in English (as opposed to Scottish, Welsh and Irish) culture away from nationalistic interpretations of history.



Maybe we could revisit this comment during the 2010 World Cup in SA?? :ENGLAND: :SOUTHAFRICA:

:HAWAII: And here's the flag of Hawaii, not because they might qualify in 2010, but because it's an American state flag which incorporates the British Union flag and I thought that might add a nice lack of clarity to this thread...

Do you think we should retake Hawaii, like we did with the Falklands?

[paximperium]

Incidentally, we let you win.
No. You lost to the French :D
Yorktown 1781

The southern British army marched to Yorktown, Virginia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yorktown,_Virginia) where they expected to be rescued by a British fleet which would take them back to New York.[67] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution#cite_note-66) When that fleet was defeated by a French fleet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chesapeake), however, they became trapped in Yorktown.[68] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution#cite_note-67) In October 1781 under a combined siege by the French and Continental armies, the British under the command of General Cornwallis, surrendered. However, Cornwallis was so embarrassed at his defeat that he had to send his second in command to surrender for him.[69] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution#cite_note-68)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution#Yorktown_1781

[EGarrett]

The answer for Britain is the same as England and you already have had the answer. However I will explain it again.
In Britain there is no single examination broad and no single syllabus. Schools sign up to an examination board, such as Edexcell.I'm aware that there is no single syllabus. I was asking for examples, and I chose to just be specific about the country I wanted. Understood?

[Lothian]

I'm aware that there is no single syllabus. I was asking for examples, and I chose to just be specific about the country I wanted. Understood?That is fine, I trust the Edexcell link helped. Stick UK Examination Board in google and I am sure you will find more.

[shuttlt]

Maybe we could revisit this comment during the 2010 World Cup in SA?? :ENGLAND: :SOUTHAFRICA:
?
I'll be hiding under the table until the whole horrid thing is over.

[uruk]

We were taught that The USA is a nation of stolen land built on the backs of slaves. Was that before or after the American Rebellion/Revolution?

Before the revolution you had European colonists displacing the natives and using slaves. After the revolution you had Americans further displacing the natives and using slaves.

[jeremyp]

Holding a third of the world captive by the barrel of a gun and running the slave trade? I'd say it is pretty shameful for most Britons.
Given that many parts of the World were subject to inclusion in European empires during the late 18th and 19th centuries, the British Empire wasn't actually such a bad one to be in by the standards of the time. Many of our European neighbours went round causing genocide amongst local populations. The British only did it in a few cases. And let's be honest, the record of the original 13 states of the USA is not exactly unblemished. Some have even called the American Revolution a disaster for the natives in that they would probably have been treated better under British rule.

As far as the Revolution itself goes, I think that no more than a handful of people are taught about it in British schools. I have recently finished reading a book that stated that even here in Britain there was strong sympathy for the American rebels who were seen by some as legitimate protesters against the iniquities of the state. This book put the figure of support as high as about 40% (of people who knew or cared where America was).

[The Drain]

I'll be hiding under the table until the whole horrid thing is over.



Well said! I do believe you're quoting King George III?

[TragicMonkey]

Do you think we should retake Hawaii, like we did with the Falklands?

The what? Oh, you mean the Islas Malvinas. Your funny accent made you type the words wrong.

And Hawaii's ours. We stole it fair and square!

[JimBenArm]

The what? Oh, you mean the Islas Malvinas. Your funny accent made you type the words wrong.

And Hawaii's ours. We stole it fair and square!
But if we give them Hawaii, they have to deal with Hokulele. Sounds like a fair deal to me!

[Architect]

If I asked how it was taught in Britain, then people may reply with explanations of how it's taught in other countries that are irrelevant to the view I actually want. Thus, I ask specifically about England.

You seem to be struggling a little. Let me make this simple for you.

The analogy for your question would be asking people from the USA how those in New Jersey felt about the 1745 uprising and was it taught in New Jersey schools.

Now, imagine the mild puzzlement and amusement from other American posters.

The state is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. England is just a bit of it.

[gtc]

The analogy for your question would be asking people from the USA how those in New Jersey felt about the 1745 uprising and was it taught in New Jersey schools.

Now, imagine the mild puzzlement and amusement from other American posters.

It might be taken as a bit specific. However I believe the education system in the US (like Canada and Australia) is quite a bit more decentralised than the UK or NZ. Curriculums seem to be set by state and local authorities in the US and states/provinces in Australia and Canada.

Therefore, the way the 1745 uprising is taught in New Jersey could be quite different to the way it is taught in New York for example. Certainly, the curriculum and examinations are very different in NSW and Queensland and school results are presented differently too.

The state is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. England is just a bit of it.

New Jersey is to the USA as Scotland is the UK might be seen by some as downplaying the status of Scotland as a nation in its own right.

[gtc]

If anyone is interested, my school in Queensland taught the American Revolution when we were 15 as part of an overview of the events that preceded and were associated with the Industrial Revolution. We briefly covered the Agrarian Revolution, the Inclosure Acts, the Corn laws and the American Revolution but concentrated on the French Revolution.

We also touched on the impetus that the American Revolution gave for the establisment of a British settlement in Australia as the Revolution reduced Britain's ability to export its surplus penal population.

[EGarrett]

You seem to be struggling a little. Let me make this simple for you.Considering what follows, it's clear that you're the one who's struggling, both with understanding of my question and insecurity in fearing that other people don't know or care about the make-up of the UK.

The analogy for your question would be asking people from the USA how those in New Jersey felt about the 1745 uprising and was it taught in New Jersey schools.

Now, imagine the mild puzzlement and amusement from other American posters.

The state is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. England is just a bit of it.What if you actually wanted to know how it was taught in New Jersey? What would you ask then?

[Soapy Sam]

There's a NEW Jersey?
What will those Yankees think of next?

[gumboot]

I'm not English or British or whatever, so like gtc I'll offer up my own experience (which the OP didn't ask for).

We didn't learn anything about the War of Independence. I don't remember all of the topics we covered but here's some:

Palestine/Israel
Northern Ireland
US Black Civil Rights Movement
NZ Woman's Rights Movement
New Zealand foreign-policy history post WW2
The Origins of WWI
The Wiemar Republic and Nazi Germany
British Colonial Rule in India
French Indochina and the Vietnam War
New Zealand history (up to the early 20th Century)

In additional we had a separate "Classical Studies" subject which focused on Ancient Greece and Rome but included art, architecture, religion, philosophy, etc as well as basic history.

[Travis]

In my US school we were taught about Guy Fawkes. My teacher seemed to think he was a noble revolutionary aiming to take out a corrupt government that had it coming. It resulted in a lot of Commonwealth people acting real silly with fireworks.

I must admit that it is somewhat strange to me that the French Revolution is so extensively covered by everyone (including here in the US) when it was such an abject failure and the successful American Revolution is pretty much covered only in the US. I mean is no-one even a bit curious in these schools how the US came into existence? Do they just sort of assume it popped into the world from nowhere as a complete state?

[tomwaits]

In my US school we were taught about Guy Fawkes. My teacher seemed to think he was a noble revolutionary aiming to take out a corrupt government that had it coming. It resulted in a lot of Commonwealth people acting real silly with fireworks.

I must admit that it is somewhat strange to me that the French Revolution is so extensively covered by everyone (including here in the US) when it was such an abject failure and the successful American Revolution is pretty much covered only in the US. I mean is no-one even a bit curious in these schools how the US came into existence? Do they just sort of assume it popped into the world from nowhere as a complete state?

I suppose it's because that, whether successful or not, the French Revolution had a much more profound impact upon Europe than the American Revolution.

[ImaginalDisc]

I never quite understood what we were doing, burning the white house in 1812.

I suppose Napoleon was busy retreating from Moscow, so we just needed a war to keep our hand in.

The War of 1812 basically was meant to settle the issues involved in a continued British presence on the continent. Considering the end result was status quo antebellum we lost.

[malbui]

I must admit that it is somewhat strange to me that the French Revolution is so extensively covered by everyone (including here in the US) when it was such an abject failure...


This is probably fodder for a whole new fifty-page thread, but I think it could be argued that writing off the French Revolution as an abject failure is a bit of a sweeping conclusion.

To start with, it presupposes that there was some kind of common objective on the part of the participants that wasn't achieved, whereas there were lots of disparate groups who on achieving some kind of power had very little by way of practical political vision and could think of nothing better to do than eliminate their opponents. And the objectives of my ancestors who were arguing (amongst other things) for better social conditions at the Chateau de Vizille in 1788 were demonstrably different to the objectives of the likes of Robespierre, Danton and Saint-Just.

Then there's the impact on the political model. Sure the monarchy was subsequently restored amongst several different attempts at finding a constitution that worked in the C19, but the attitudes of the people towards the monarchy had changed significantly. Within 80 years the monarchy had gone from absolute authority ("L'Etat, c'est moi") to the guillotine, and the society would never quite be the same again. When subsequent kings became unpopular and lost authority, getting them to move on was much less complicated.

And then there were the circumstances that led to the rise and brief but absolute acquisition of power of Napoleon, with all the consequences that had for both France (the pointless loss of an entire generation of young men, the reorganisation of the national administration, the introduction of a legal code that remains significant to this day) and for the rest of the world, especially the countries in Europe that had been caught up in the various conflicts.

That, at least, is why I'd argue for the significance of the Revolution.







* Note: I'm not a historian. Just French.

[Travis]

Well regardless of goals the fact is that France didn't get itself a stable form of government until....gee how many decades after the Revolution started? Conversely the American Revolution had by 1787, a mere twelve years after the first bullets were fired, a constitution that is still in place.

However that there were many disparate goals of the French Revolution only adds evidence to the idea that the whole thing was a bloody awful chaotic mess that arguably created a heck of a lot more misery than it was intended to solve. I mean besides, for a brief time, Napoleon who benefited from the French Revolution at all?

[brodski]

I never quite understood what we were doing, burning the white house in 1812.

I suppose Napoleon was busy retreating from Moscow, so we just needed a war to keep our hand in.

The Americans were trading with the French, we didn't like that so we put a stop to it, they didn't like that we put a stop to it (oh and we kidnapped some of their sailors), so they declared war.

[malbui]

Well regardless of goals the fact is that France didn't get itself a stable form of government until....gee how many decades after the Revolution started? Conversely the American Revolution had by 1787, a mere twelve years after the first bullets were fired, a constitution that is still in place.


Stable government? Some might argue 1848, some might argue 1871. Some like me would argue that we still haven't got it quite right. But this is my point: the French Revolution is massively significant because it upset the constitutional framework that had been in place for a good couple of hundred years and it took the country an enormous time to recover, with wounds being opened that took decades to heal. Compared to that, the American Revolution/War of Independence/whatever you call it was a rapid and orderly transfer of power and a lot less interesting.


However that there were many disparate goals of the French Revolution only adds evidence to the idea that the whole thing was a bloody awful chaotic mess that arguably created a heck of a lot more misery than it was intended to solve. I mean besides, for a brief time, Napoleon who benefited from the French Revolution at all?

I don't think we disagree at all. Just along the road from my parents' house is a big bronze statue of Napoleon on horseback, at the spot where he was met by the troops sent to stop him on his march back up from Elba and where they came over to his side. I can't drive past it without wondering if things wouldn't have been better if someone had put a couple of bullets in him when they had the opportunity.

[skbuncks]

Assuming I speak with the voice of the nation then in answer to the OP we barely give it any thought whatsoever.

Prior to A-levels (didnt take history at A-level) I was in education from 1978 to 1990, and, baring one exception which I will come too, we never touched upon the subject. For GCSE history we had the choice between:

The Modern World: 20th Century History (First and Second world wars) and,

Medicine and the American West, which as far as I can tell concentrated on Quacks and cowboys.

The one exception to this, and it wasnt on the syllabus, was taught to us in primary school as a bit of local history. My birthplace, a town about 10 miles down the coast from where I grew up was, and is, Whitehaven, hailed as some as the site of the last invasion of England by America.
On April 23rd 1778 a Captain John Paul Jones led a raid on Whitehaven hoping to set fire to the ships anchored in the docks (around 200 ish of them). He failed and was forced to retreat by the locals with his kilt between his legs.

As an interesting aside, the grandmother of Americas first president, George Washington, was Mildred Gale from the prominent Gale family in Whitehaven - her remains are still in Whitehaven, interred at St. Nicholas Church.

skb

[Travis]

Okay, so we've reached the conclusions that:

American Independence = boring
French Revolution = interesting

Regardless of that it still seems strange to completely overlook the American story. At our local high school they are changing the history courses to include lots more of China's history because China is a rising superpower and it is felt that young people should be taught its history. So it still seems odd to completely ignore the history of the richest and most powerful country on Earth.

[Nogbad]

Okay, so we've reached the conclusions that:

American Independence = boring
French Revolution = interesting

Regardless of that it still seems strange to completely overlook the American story. At our local high school they are changing the history courses to include lots more of China's history because China is a rising superpower and it is felt that young people should be taught its history. So it still seems odd to completely ignore the history of the richest and most powerful country on Earth.

It is not so much ignored as just not greatly emphasised. We did cover some of the concepts and looked at Tom Paine etc., but the French Revolution, messy as it was, had enormous ramifications for Europe and started a war that lasted the best part of 20 years. A war which stretched from Britain to Russia and sowed the seeds for the 1848 revolutions and a lot of subsequent radical thinking. The Russian revolution might well be considered an offspring of 1789.

British history has to cover the Empire which includes India, China, Australia, Canada and large chunks of the Middle East and Africa plus all the ongoing disputes across the globe during the 19th century.

It is also fair to say that European schools have a lot of history to cover. We are surrounded by the Neolithic remains of our ancestors, Iron Age forts, Roman cities, medieval castles and ruling elites with lineages as long as your arm. US history, nothwithstanding the principles enshrined in the revolution, didn't really get very interesting until the Civil War. It would be fair to say that a hell of a lot of this gets only a surface covering. It is possible to specialise in American history at Uni though.

[malbui]

Okay, so we've reached the conclusions that:

American Independence = boring
French Revolution = interesting

Regardless of that it still seems strange to completely overlook the American story. At our local high school they are changing the history courses to include lots more of China's history because China is a rising superpower and it is felt that young people should be taught its history. So it still seems odd to completely ignore the history of the richest and most powerful country on Earth.


I think our positions are closer than you think. I agree that it is absurd not to spend a certain amount of time on American Independence as part of any course on modern history, because it did see the birth of such a powerful country. But it's all about impact and context. You can argue that American independence was inevitable, and even if it hadn't emerged from events in the 1770s the rupture with the UK would have come along at some point, so on that basis it's interesting but not vital.

With the French Revolution, though, all bets were off, and as Nogbad says the impact was enormous across the whole continent, with major conflicts from Portugal to Russia and down into Egypt and the shapes of numerous countries emerging, in unpredictable ways, from the carnage. The part of France I'm from, the part of Switzerland where I work, the part of Ireland one set of my grandparents and their ancestors were from - all of these were directly affected by the Revolution and its geopolitical aftermaths. Hence the focus in our schools.

[CORed]

In my US school we were taught about Guy Fawkes. My teacher seemed to think he was a noble revolutionary aiming to take out a corrupt government that had it coming. It resulted in a lot of Commonwealth people acting real silly with fireworks.

Well why not? They don't celebrate the fourth of July, so they have to find another excuse to act silly with fireworks..

[CORed]

There's a NEW Jersey?
What will those Yankees think of next?

It's not really all that new any more. It was named during the 18th century or maybe late in the 17th. Well before the American Revolution (or whatever it's called in the UK).

[Sefarst]

This thread reminded me, when are the British going to pay us some reparations for all of the oppression we suffered?

[gumboot]

The Napoleonic Wars are widely regarded as the First World War.

The American Revolution isn't really profoundly important in the big scheme of things, because it didn't turn the USA into a Super Power. On the international stage, the USA was fairly irrelevant until the end of World War One.

[gumboot]

To put things in perspective... the British committed 12,000 soldiers to the War of Independence.

In contrast, the British invasion of the Waikato during the New Zealand Land Wars involved a force of 18,000.

[qwints]

Is that counting the Hessains?

[Zep]

When I was young, in the old days, [waves cane at children from wheelchair] we were never taught about the American revolutionary war. There was some mention of tea-leaves being thrown off a ship at some point, and some guy named Revere galloping somewhere at night. All very relevant to...well, nothing in particular, really. Seemed utterly confusing. I vaguely recall a Rip Van Winkle in there too. Or was it some guy with no head who haunted places... Whatever.

Only later, after finishing school and travelling and working in the USA briefly, was I able to make more sense of it. For example, the "Boston Tea Party", while ostensibly a protest against taxation without representation, was actually a drunken riot by colonials dressed up in Indian costume disguises, having done an all-night pub-crawl along the road from Lexington to Boston Harbour to whip up their fervour.*

Fortunately this was offset by the absolute beauty of Concord in the fall, and a visit to the scene of "the first shot" at Old North Bridge. I live today in the city on the other side of the world that was founded (precariously) on the results of that shot.

Perhaps we should have been taught a lot more about it!




*As described to me by a local historian at Lexington, no less!

[Baby Nemesis]

I don't think this is taught anywhere. Perhaps it shouldn't be. But it's true.

I don't think anyone's to blame. It was an unforeseeable outcome then. But the American Revolution should never have happened. Both sides should have negotiated. The American Revolution led to global tragedy on an immense scale. Of course those who caused the later tragedies have to take responsibility. But the tragedies wouldn't have happened if it hadn't been for the American Revolution.

Here's why the American Revolution indirectly led to millions and millions of deaths:

Firstly: If it hadn't happened, all the terrible suffering and slaughter of the American Civil War wouldn't have happened, because when slavery was abolished by the British parliament in the early 1830s, America being a British dominion, slavery would have been abolished in America as well, and American slave owners would have received handsome compensation from the British tax payer in return for giving up their earnings got from slaves.

When the First World War started in 1914, it wouldn't have gone on for anywhere near as long if America had still been a British dominion, because like Canadian troops did, Americans would have flocked to the war at the beginning, and the amount of manpower would have been too much for the Germans, who would have been forced to surrender much earlier.

If they had been, there would have been no humiliating Treaty of Versailles. The Germans would not have been forced to pay so much in reparations and forced to accept such humiliating terms that their country was run-down for years and in a ripe state for a group like the Nazis who promised hope and rejuvenation of national pride to come along and flourish. There were eyewitnesses to the Treaty of Versailles who said they saw the seeds of another war in it.

So if America had been a British dominion and thus Americans had flocked to the First World War at the beginning, there wouldn't have been a second one. No Holocaust. No millions of other lives lost.

And no Cold War either. No. In fact, with Russia unweakened by its battles during the First World War with the Germans, chances are the Russian Revolution wouldn't have succeeded. No Communism. The Tsars might have been pressured to become more enlightened and less tyranical, and not defeated. No millions of deaths under Stalin. No Stalinist crusade to rule Eastern Europe. No mistaken tactical collusion by Roosevelt with Stalin against Churchill which gave Stalin the impression he could get away with taking over Eastern Europe without America objecting. No Vietnam War. No crushing of a secular modernising government in Afghanistan in the 1980s that's caused misery for the people there up until this day. No cultivation of Bin Laden and his followers that led to them being a force to be reckoned with when they turned against America. No 9/11 attacks.

Britain wouldn't have had to give up its colonies after the Second World War because it was too financially drained to be able to afford to hold on to them. So while Britain was becoming more socially progressive and modernising, it would probably have given all its colonies in Africa similar privileges - modern healthcare accessible to all in all those countries, and better living standards. So much of the poverty and death in Africa wouldn't still be around.

Yes. If America had remained British, the world would have been a much more peaceful and better place until this day.

[gumboot]

You forgot a rather important point, that being the Royal Proclamation of 1763 that established the Proclamation Line beyond which the American colonies could not expand. Has the Colonies not become independent, the USA may have remained limited to the east coast, in which case the impact on history would have been profound. For one, there would have been no mass of American troops to be added to allied forces in WWI and WWII.

[Baby Nemesis]

Hey, this wasn't ancient Persia. ;) Royal proclamations could be changed. I expect the pressure of emigration would have changed their minds.

Of course, another reason Americans would have been better off staying British is that when Britain got a national health service, America would probably have got one as well. Is it true that as many as 47 Million Americans have no health insurance? America would now have a universal healthcare system where everybody was entitled to the same standard of treatment if they hadn't revolted.

[Prometheus]

As I recall, given that we English ruled about 1/3 of the World, the American Revolution was presented to us in class as a small temporary rise in the price of a cup of tea.

:D

[ddt]

I must admit that it is somewhat strange to me that the French Revolution is so extensively covered by everyone (including here in the US) when it was such an abject failure and the successful American Revolution is pretty much covered only in the US. I mean is no-one even a bit curious in these schools how the US came into existence? Do they just sort of assume it popped into the world from nowhere as a complete state?

To also chip in my 2 cents on this: as most other posters have said, the French Revolution of 1789 had profound effects on the whole of (continental) Europe, and I agree with the assessment that the Russian Revolution was also influenced by it.

Sure, the American Revolution was successful, and it had some influence on the later French revolutionaries, but not beyond that. The French Revolution of 1789 led to an earhtquake all over Europe. Ancien Regimes all around France collapsed. To just take my own country as an example: in 1795, the "Patriots" who had fled to France returned and chased away the last Orange stadtholder, and instituted a liberal constitution. Yes, Napoleon corrupted the ideals of the Revolution, and after his defeat, the "old order" was instituted on behest of Metternich et.al. But the geni was out of the bottle, leading to the 1830 Revolution - which, a.o. led to the Belgian Rebellion - and the 1848 Revolution which swept all over Europe and led to constitutional governments all around (in the Dutch case, there was no revolution but the King went from conservative to liberal in a night as is said).

Beyond the liberal political ideals, one shouldn't forget the other accomplishments of the French Revolution that stuck: the Napoleonic code which became the model for all of continental Europe, and the metric system which gave Europe (and the world) a unified measurements system it hadn't seen since the times of Charlemagne.

[The Drain]

This thread reminded me, when are the British going to pay us some reparations for all of the oppression we suffered?

The UK was still repaying its world war 2 loan debt to the US in 2006.

So it was never really a matter of helping your mate out who's in a tight spot; it was more like "Yeah, ok, I'll help you stand up to the playground bully - but only if you give me all your lunch-money first".

Thanks a bunch!



(This is an idle trite comment of mine - don't take it too seriously).

[Prometheus]

<snip>
(This is an idle trite comment of mine - don't take it too seriously).

Too little, too late; I'm afraid we'll have to cancel our assistance and return your country to its pre-assistance state. Perhaps the quickest way would be for us to send you George Bush to lead you for a while. :cool: [/ot]

[Alex C]

Wasn't taught at my school (just over 3 years back). I think we learnt about our own civil war instead.

[ImaginalDisc]

Wasn't taught at my school (just over 3 years back). I think we learnt about our own civil war instead.

And the American Revolution doesn't consistute one?

[Soapy Sam]

Here's why the American Revolution indirectly led to millions and millions of deaths: etc...

Playing "Historical What if?" is fun, but history is a tangled skein- pull one thread and you are likely to just tighten the knot without untangling much.

Had Bonnie Prince Charlie continued south from Derby, the Hanoverian government would probably have fled. The army might have decided any old king would do - and a Stewart would have returned to the throne.

The royal families of Europe in the 18th and 19th century were frequently intermarried. Any significant change would have echoed down the years.

Queen Victoria might never have reigned. Kaiser Wilhelm and Tsar Alexander might never have reigned. The American colonies might have negotiated a fair tax regime and stayed British.

See where we're going? But does this mean World War 1 and 2 would not have happened? I doubt it. European trade and population growth would have led to the same problems- possibly worse. Germany might have
had a sane leader who didn't drive half Germany's scientists into emigration, but waged a "clean" war against the British Empire. Absent the extremes of National Socialism, America might have stayed neutral.
We might be writing this in German or Russian. Too many variables. No way to say what would be different.

[cj.23]

The bits I recall from History lessons were
i) the British respected their treaties with the Native Americans, yet continued illegal settlement of the Ohio river valley and treaty violations by civilians led to the revolt
ii) Despite not taxation without representation, the colonists paid lower taxes and had more representation in terms of the colonial assemblies.

I could probably recall more if I thought about it, but here is my traditional Julky 4th post on other forums --

"I just noticed that it is the night of the Fourth of July, so happy Independence Day to the US folk on the forum. And for any fundies, I will accept your surrender on behalf of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, and the restoration of the colonies at any time. After all, you would not want to go against the Bible would you?

As we all know, "no taxation without representation" was a cry of the traitors like Washington, Jefferson, Franklin et al. They objected to be a colony of the noble British Empire, and as uppity colonials always do thought they should run their own show. Jolly bad show all round.

Rather than managing to lose the war and get hanged as they richly deserved, they won. OK, 1812 and the White House open air bonfire party made up for it a little, but it still irritates.

However luckily these foul "Founding Fathers" were clearly a bunch of irreligious maniacs, or simply did not know their Scripture. For what system of Government does God endorse? Imperialism, and colonies paying taxation without representation. For is it not written "Render unto Caesar what is Caesars, and God what is Gods." Clearly meaning the economic system then prevalent in the Roman colony of Judea was acceptable. So stop whinging, and give us our colonies back, and we can celebrate true patriots like Benedict Arnold and Cornwallis, rather than perpetuate this irreligious treason? :)

Now of course, you may object to being forced to submit to England, in which case I will cheerfully accept a surrender to me personally. I have never been a King before, but have no real objection to trying something new. I don't think American Democracy is faring well, so why not give Enlightened Despotism and a totally nonhereditary I just felt-like-giving-it-a-shot monarchy a go? King CJ I - has a nice ring to it? :)

I will of course give the Native Americans due credit - they were there first. Mind you, in the UK so were the Welsh. Everyone else though, how can you go against the clear word of God and support this overthrow of rightful government? Have you not read Paul's Epistles, if my earlier theological justification does not convince.

I await your surrender with eager anticipation. Maybe afterwards we can have a nice cup of tea?

Happy 4th July
cj x

[The Drain]

CJ, when you've accepted the surrender of the 13 colonies what are we going to do about the rest of the former USA?

(Please note my use of the word "we". I am happy to accept the post of 'Lord High Chancellor of the Returned Colonies & HM Interim Controller of the Remaining Illegally Attained States' under your new regime).

I would recommend telling all those inhabitants who are not Native Americans to go back to where they came from; this might mean Ireland becoming a bit crowded, but it would be great for the construction industry here and might get us out of the recession.

[tomwaits]

I would recommend telling all those inhabitants who are not Native Americans to go back to where they came from; this might mean Ireland becoming a bit crowded, but it would be great for the construction industry here and might get us out of the recession.

When I was in Ireland the only thing I saw construction workers do was sit around and smoke. Just sayin...

[Blackadder]

In Holland we learn this:

Once upon a time you had British Empire, the most powerful empire the world has ever seen in history. (This also adds to our glory because we, the little Dutch have won a few battles against the Britons in our glory days and one of us even became their King for a while)

The English rules most of the world, including the new Americas (North part anyway) All was good. but then the English did fight a lot with us, and with the French and Spaniards and needed more and more money. So they raised taxes. The people in the new world didn't like it so they send Benjamin Franklin to London to argue. But the King didn't listen in the end. Mr Franklin went home and they decided to throw all the tea into the sea. Now the Queen got pissed because she likes her tea, so the King had to send in his men, they wore nice red uniforms. The Soldiers fought against the Rebels, who are a combination of Davy Crockett and Old Shatterhand. (played by Mel Gibson) In the end the Rebels won because they had George Washington and they didn't wear red jackets.

Then George and Benjamin and his gang wrote up a constitution and they lived happily ever after.


(This is from my head, so it might be slightly off in details....... )

[tomwaits]

they wore nice red uniforms.

It was one of their chief weapons.

[NoZed Avenger]

I await your surrender with eager anticipation. Maybe afterwards we can have a nice cup of tea?


"There are certain sections of New York that I wouldn't advise you to invade."
- Richard Blaine