"British admit they were barely taught the history of" Topic

…American revolutionary war in school.

"To the United States, the number "1776" is an iconic one that conjures memories of revolution, defiance, and freedom.

For the British, however, 1776 is just another year in the history of an Empire that couldn't last.

While this might come as a surprise for the Americans across the pond, the American Revolution was just one of the countless uprisings that took place during the long life of the British people…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

"an Empire that couldn't last"

To be fair, it was only just getting going.

I remember being part of a school performance in 1976 for the bicentennial and heritage signs being put up in my home town of Gravesend for the benefit of American tourists, Pocahontas is buried in a local churchyard.
Other than that, the AWI is hardly mentioned and is not on the curriculum in schools.

Most Americans can't tell you when was the War of 1812 either, but it is a big deal in Canada. The fact that the American Revolution is not on the curriculum in England doesn't surprise me.

I'm British & have a History honours degree, but I was never taught any 18th Century history post 1714. In my school days (albeit a long time ago) it was all Tudors & Stuarts or Victorian history, and all pretty tedious too.

In the UK at least we aren't really taught history as say a series of (unfortunate) events. GCSE history concentrates on the First World War and the period afterwards, especially the postwar treaties and the rise of fascism in Europe. The aim is I believe to teach the principles of historical research, i.e. use of sources not to give the students a general grounding in world history.

I have read a book about the American Revolutionary War, and I am probably more knowledgeable about this than say, the English Civil War. Sir Banestre Tartleton died in the next village across from me.

True. For me it was one Wednesday morning session (an hour) in Mr Cross' class at Magna Karta Skool, Egham in 1979/80: I still have my timetable! Usual bllx about wiley frontiersmen, trees, dopey redcoats, etc.

Thanks!.

Amicalement
Armand

if we were taught the history of every war we have been involved with it wouldn't leave any time for all the other history they want us to know

We (supposedly) did "Social and Economic History" of the C18th and C19th for O-level when I was at school in the UK (1960s), so no mention of much beyond the agrarian and industrial revolutions. I say "supposedly" as our teacher had been a Lancaster tail-gunner in WW2 and was easily sidetracked! Possibly why I failed the exam.

No reason why they should be taught it. Scarcely a formative event in British history. In a Western Civ or a world history course, the outcome of the war has consequences, but not so much the fighting of it. (WWII, for instance, is different in that regard.)

All very interesting. But I suspect that its not taught because its never been taught. Its perhaps the most glaring example of mismanagement and defeat in UK history.
I doubt the UK's empire builders wished to teach the young about such.

@Pan Marek

We spent three years learning about the much greater mismanagement and defeats (and the resultant pyrrhic victory) of the Great War and the ensuing rise of Nazi Germany instead.

It should be noted that the average British person is not overly jingoistic (many are in fact anti-British). Outside of people who are into military history no one really cares about past battles or wars regardless of the outcome. It is telling that the most emotive military events for most people in the UK are the First World War (regarded as a terrible waste of life), Dunkirk and probably the Battle of Britain.

The only battles we hear about are Bunker Hill and Yorktown, curiously enough. Maybe Saratoga.

Why use the word ‘admit' in the title, as if it is something that was wrung from people by interrogation, unwillingly? At school I was not taught about the AWI, or the Napoleonic Wars, or the First or Second World Wars. Tudors and Stuarts, and Victorians were the bits we did in detail. And some bits about Romans. Apart from an attempt to provide a timeline from Mesopotamia to the present day when I was about 11 there was never an idea that we would learn something about everything. Ridiculous to try and turn it into some sort of national conspiracy to avoid embarrassment

Pan
That made me laugh! And you obviously missed my earlier post.

The AWI probably puts the leftie education establishment in a bit of a spin. Britain defeated = GOOD: US win = BAD. Argh! Let's do the Industrial Revolution with its evil employers instead…

On a more serious note, we have an awful lot of history to get through with greater impact on the nation. And it will never cover the useful stuff, like uniforms and tactics.

"In the UK at least we aren't really taught history as say a series of (unfortunate) events."

That's how it is increasingly taught in the US now.

In the UK at least we aren't really taught history as say a series of (unfortunate) events. GCSE history concentrates on the First World War and the period afterwards, especially the postwar treaties and the rise of fascism in Europe. The aim is I believe to teach the principles of historical research, i.e. use of sources not to give the students a general grounding in world history.

This is basically it- its a tool for teaching skills that can be applied to other things rather than a list of things to remember.

for what its worth at A level we did WW1, the Unification of Germany, The Industrial Revolution and the Cold War (history is apparently now only the study of recent things!)

My degree level history course was a bit more mixed covering everything from Tudor fashion to Satelite sureveillance with a side order of Pottery from throughout the ages.

I think GCSEs mostly concentrated on Vietnam…

Imagine my surprise. My local history includes the Celtic era ( place names), the Roman Conquest ( place names, forts and roads), the Saxon settlement ( place names), the Viking settlements ( place names), the Norman Conquest, the Anglo Scottish Wars ( Robert de Bruce took slaves and livestock from the town I grew up in), the Wars of the 3 Kingdoms ( several battles with the Scots and several other battles and skirmishes) and the Jacobite Wars of 1715 and 1745.
We did learn about locals such as Myles Standish who took part in the settlement in America and my family name ( local to the area and not very common) shows up in Jamestown in 17thC and later in muster roles from the Confederate army.
The American Revolution was slotted in between the 1745 Rising and the French Indian Wars and the Napoleonic Wars ( where my ancestors made up, stopped fighting each other and fought the French invaders in Iberia).
On to Irish immigration, Empire and the Wars of Empire. 4 years of the Great War and almost 6 of WW2, the Cold War, Windrush and the Troubles.
By 'eck! That's lot to get through but I'm sure we can do it.

It could be worse. At least the British get SOME education. I have Americans who should know better, giving me AWI details that I know are from the film "The Patriot".

Glup!….

Amicalement
Armand