The Revolutionary War

In light of the 4th of July,...I had to explain what the Revolutionary War was to someone (UKC) last night. She didn't comprehend that the "US" wasn't all 50 states at that point in time either. I had to explain the whole "colonies" thing, along with "taxation without representation" being one of the reasons for the war.

Does anyone else find this strange?

Strange in what way?

I was not really taught anything about US history or how the US states came to be when I was in school in the UK. In primary school we learned about the Victorian times, the Industrial Revolution, the Tudors and Stewarts (Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, Sir Francis Drake etc.), Guy Fawkes and the Gunpowder plot etc. The only thing I remember learning about American history was Christopher Columbus' journey to the 'New World' in 1492. In secondary school, I only took 3 years of history, but again it focused mostly on British history and also the 20th Century (WWI and WWII mostly).

The only reason I know a little about the history of the US states is because I have relatives in the US and I helped them studying for their US citizenship tests in 2001 (and also because I've now spent 2 years in total in the US as a student, although I studied science, not history)! Other than that, I don't know much about the Revolutionary War. I have always known that the US was 'discovered' and colonised by the Spanish and then the British, but I don't know the details of the where and when or how the US actually came to be independent (I don't even know what the 'taxation without representation' part means).

"Strange", as in, I thought it was something that would have been taught in schools, since it's not just US history.  The colonies went to war against the British, so I figured it was something that British students were taught in schools.  (DB has a pretty sound understanding of it all--so I thought it was something he had learned previously).  I guess maybe I was wrong!  Thanks for sharing your perspective, ksand.

1968, the year my UK partner took GCE 'O' level history, the syllabus included American  history 1773-1865. Boston Tea Party to the end of the Civil War. When I asked about this after seeing this thread, a whole lot came tumbling out.  The Thirteen Colonies, the Revolutionary War, Cornwallis, the War of 1812, Copperheads, John Brown's Raid, Bull Run, Antietam, Lincoln, U.S. Grant...

1968, the year my UK partner took GCE 'O' level history, the syllabus included American  history 1773-1865. Boston Tea Party to the end of the Civil War. When I asked about this after seeing this thread, a whole lot came tumbling out.  The Thirteen Colonies, the Revolutionary War, Cornwallis, the War of 1812, Copperheads, John Brown's Raid, Bull Run, Antietam, Lincoln, U.S. Grant...

See, I wish we'd actually learned more about it in school, because just looking it up on Wiki a few minutes ago, I didn't realise how much British history is tied up with it too (I never even knew the Revolutionary War involved so many people from different countries) - I wonder why it was taught in 1968, but not when I was at school (between 1987 and 2001)?

What have you guys started? Mobile and "Damn the torpedoes!" and the Treaty of Alliance and the Betsey and the two wars against the Barbary Pirates...

I wonder why it was taught in 1968, but not when I was at school (between 1987 and 2001)?

I don't know. Maybe your school didn't choose a syllabus that included it? I do know that the GCSE syllabus has included "The American West 1840-1895" for around 10 years and topics covered include these: (partner recognises some of these)

The American West: inhabitants and early settlers

    The Plains Indians: their beliefs and way of life

    Early migration and settlement: trappers and miners in the far West; the reasons for increasing migration; the Oregon Trail; Joseph Smith and the Mormons at Salt Lake City.

    Cattlemen and cowboys: ranching on the Great Plains; the life and work of the cowboy; reality and myth.

The settlement of the Great Plains

    The reasons for the growth of Western settlement: the role of governments; motives and aspirations of migrants; the role of railroads and railroad companies

    Survival on the Plains: the life and work of the homesteaders; the role of women.

    Farming: problems and solutions.

Conflict on the Plains

    Conflicts between settlers and the Native American peoples: the clash of cultures; the reasons for the Plains Wars and their outcomes; the Battle of the Little Big Horn and its impact: Custer and Sitting Bull.

    Changing government attitudes and policy towards the Plains Indians.

    The impact of settlement of the West on native peoples to 1895.

I don't know. Maybe your school didn't choose a syllabus that included it? I do know that the GCSE syllabus has included "The American West 1840-1895" for around 10 years and topics covered include these: (partner recognises some of these)

I didn't actually take GCSE History (I took Geography instead), so maybe it was in their syllabus but I just didn't know it (duh - I should have thought of that before posting above ).

So, to clarify, I wasn't taught anything about US History/the Revolutionary War between the ages of 4 and 14 .

So, to clarify, I wasn't taught anything about US History/the Revolutionary War between the ages of 4 and 14 .

Ok, so maybe it was the same case with my friend--where she took some other class to meet whatever requirements her school had.

1968, the year my UK partner took GCE 'O' level history, the syllabus included American  history 1773-1865. Boston Tea Party to the end of the Civil War. When I asked about this after seeing this thread, a whole lot came tumbling out.  The Thirteen Colonies, the Revolutionary War, Cornwallis, the War of 1812, Copperheads, John Brown's Raid, Bull Run, Antietam, Lincoln, U.S. Grant...

Sounds like he might even know more than some Americans!

I didn't actually take GCSE History (I took Geography instead), so maybe it was in their syllabus but I just didn't know it (duh - I should have thought of that before posting above ).

So, to clarify, I wasn't taught anything about US History/the Revolutionary War between the ages of 4 and 14 .

Me either, I did take GCSE history as well as Geography but we did WW2 and The History of medicine.

We did do the American West 1840-1895 but I seem to remember learning about dreamcatchers and plague blankets, and that's about it!

My husband knew pretty much nothing of American history including the Colonial period or Revolutionary War.  I gave him this book to read, and it sorted him out.  Not sure what GCSEs/O-levels/A-levels/whatever he took, but I know he took them.

ETA: I just asked him, and he said he took GCE History and A-level World History, and he doesn't remember anything about American History.

Not saying that British education is inferior as I don't remember us specifically studying British history in depth outside the colonial period.  We did study the British Empire and Industrial Revolution and touched a bit on British history.  Nothing like knowing all the Monarchs or anything beyond the very basic background.

My husband knew pretty much nothing of American history including the Colonial period or Revolutionary War.  I gave him this book to read, and it sorted him out.  Not sure what GCSEs/O-levels/A-levels/whatever he took, but I know he took them.

ETA: I just asked him, and he said he took GCE History and A-level World History, and he doesn't remember anything about American History.

Not saying that British education is inferior as I don't remember us specifically studying British history in depth outside the colonial period.  We did study the British Empire and Industrial Revolution and touched a bit on British history.  Nothing like knowing all the Monarchs or anything beyond the very basic background.

Agree, it's not about inferior or superior education systems, but more about that there's a lot of history and only so much the schools can cover between the ages of 11 and 14/16 if you do GCSE.

Not saying that British education is inferior as I don't remember us specifically studying British history in depth outside the colonial period.  We did study the British Empire and Industrial Revolution and touched a bit on British history.  Nothing like knowing all the Monarchs or anything beyond the very basic background.

Exactly. It wasn't until I was in England during university that I found out that the Germans bombed more than just London. And that's with a 5 in AP Euro. Lol.

Agree, it's not about inferior or superior education systems, but more about that there's a lot of history and only so much the schools can cover between the ages of 11 and 14/16 if you do GCSE.

Totally agree!

Agree, it's not about inferior or superior education systems, but more about that there's a lot of history and only so much the schools can cover between the ages of 11 and 14/16 if you do GCSE.

Yep. Technically (according to California standards), students were supposed to get US History from the Revolutionary War to WWII. This entailed a LOT of glossing over and skipping around.  (ie my students were quite good on the Rev War, Civil War and WWII, but decided lacking in the French/Indian and Mexican War departments). There is just only so much time in the school year and SO MUCH history.

Plus, it gives me a clever line when I explain why I can still vote in US elections. (They tax me! Of course I can still vote! )