American Revolution -- British are bad guys

[Dioltach]

I'm English but grew up in the Netherlands. The American Revolution was taught very simply: "No taxation without representation", the Boston Tea Party, not much else. Nothing was said about the British perspective. That said, a lot of the history we were taught was like that. With the French Revolution the focus was entirely on the economic differences before the revolution; if the Terror was mentioned at all, it was just that one word without any explanation.

A lot was made of Dutch achievements: the great sea battles that they won against the Spanish and the British (nothing about Camperdown, though), their revolt against the Spanish, their great explorers and colonies (but nothing about the police actions in Indonesia). Slavery was only mentioned in the context of other countries' history.

The only subjects we studied in any depth were the Industrial Revolution, the rise of Communism and the Russian Revolution. Five years in a row, despite the fact that this was the late 1980s and early 1990s and Communism in Europe was visibly failing at the time. Sure it was an important factor in world history, but there were other things too, most of which were just ignored. (I'm sorry, when I look back on my time at school I can get very angry about limited the education was and how much more I could have learned, or had to find out by myself.)

 

[Morrus]

The American rebellion, oops, revolution ( ) was painted fairly accurately: as a desire for independence from the UK. "Freedom" was never the buzzword used, and that seems to have gained more currency in the past couple of decades as "freedom" has declined.

Yeah, it's definitely portrayed as "independence", and not "freedom". That basic emotive language choice does show how easy it is to do, though.

 

[darrell_uk]

I'm sorry to say that as far as I am aware it's not taught at all in the UK.

That said, you need to bear in mind that, although history is on the national curriculum, schools can select which of a number of syllabuses they choose to teach, resulting in different places concentrating on different things, and even one school concentrating on different things in different exam years. The "o-level" course I studied oh so long ago now was on 20th century history for instance.

 

[delericho]

Okay, bearing in mind that, like a great many things, the Scottish system is a little different from the rest of the UK...

My 12 year old son is currently studying the American Revolutionary period of US history. He just this moment asked me about this:

In the US, the colonists are the good guys and the British are presented as the bad guys. The British are the oppressors, fighting against American freedom. (My son understands this is a simplification. We've discussed "good guys" and "bad guys" in history and war many times.)

How does British elementary education present the colonists and the British?

Your elementary education would be roughly equivalent to our Primary schools. There, history consists of the Tudors and Stuarts, and the Ancient Egyptians. I have no idea why those particular topics were chosen - probably nice costumes for the one, and pointy buildings for the other.

At high school, the first couple of years were a bit scattered - I remember bits of Scottish history (notably Bannockburn), bits on the 2nd World War, and some stuff on Vikings. Oh, and some stuff on British history from Waterloo to the Great Exhibition (1815 to 1851).

After that, I did the O-Grade, as part of the last class to do that particular qualification (and, indeed, History and Geography were the last subjects to change over to the new Standard Grade). We did "Life in Scotland 1760 - 1820", which was mostly about farming, and the changes in farming due to new techniques. We did Russia in their reigns of Peter and Catherine the Great, which was thankfully much more interesting. And we did a lot on the First World War.

Finally, I did the so-called "Alternate" Higher (again, this was the last class before they moved to the "Revised" Higher, and again this was the last subject to change over - and no, I have no idea why). Here we did history from the Glorious Revolution to the French Revolution (strictly, it was supposed to be 1689 - 1789, but the course was stretched to cover two 'landmark' events). This last was hugely European in emphasis - we did lots on Louis XIV, lots on the French philosophes, and so forth, but very very little on the American War of Independence.

It was only in that very last class that we touched on the Revolution, and by that point we wouldn't have talked about "good guys" and "bad guys". However, it was pretty clearly understood that Britain was in the wrong on that one.

 

[Morrus]

I do seem to remember the Tolpuddle Martyrs coming up a lot.

 

[darrell_uk]

I somehow doubt that they are covered much on the far side of the pond.

 

[Jet Shield]

Yeah, it's definitely portrayed as "independence", and not "freedom". That basic emotive language choice does show how easy it is to do, though.

That's not entirely accurate. As evidence, two quotes from The Declaration of Independence:

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

 

[Morrus]

That's not entirely accurate. As evidence, two quotes from The Declaration of Independence:

We're talking about how it's generally portrayed in classrooms in the UK. Obviously the document itself is going to use that type of language; most independence verbiage tends to.

 

[Jet Shield]

Oh. Yeah, I knew that.


Note to self: Don't try to post while sick. Your brain doesn't work even half as well as you think it does.

 

[DMZ2112]

This is only tangentially related, but I grew up in close proximity to the location of the Battle of Paoli, which (local) Americans still remember as the Paoli Massacre 230-odd years on despite the fact that it was really just a rout -- records show that the British were no more brutal in that engagement than they were in any other.

Some of the police cruisers in Malvern, Pennsylvania, still sport "Remember Paoli!" bumper stickers, which has always seemed a bit dramatic to me.

But on the other side of things, the descendants of the British regiments that fought in the Battle of Paoli continued to wear red flashing on their headgear until the late 20th century -- flashing that was originally intended to infuriate the American soldiers who had sworn to avenge the "massacre."

History is neat. And it doesn't have to be very old at all before people start rewriting it to suit their political needs. It's amazing we remember anything accurately. Maybe we don't.