What type of history do school children study in the UK?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Stupidest thing we ever did was to declare independence from UK. To think we could be enjoying freedom and healthcare and education and elder care, all with the benefits of air conditioning and better plumbing….

Whut?

[Anonymous]

They do a lot more medieval history, as evidenced by when I studied abroad in the UK and was lost and everyone else seemed to know all about it.

They gloss over losses in wars like the American war for independence. I was told in lecture that the Americans were ungrateful brats who didn't want to pay for protection from the native Americans and obviously they were in a better position because we knew our land better and Britain had a whole empire to deal with....and our land was an untamed wilderness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stupidest thing we ever did was to declare independence from UK. To think we could be enjoying freedom and healthcare and education and elder care, all with the benefits of air conditioning and better plumbing….

Whut?

Somone obsessed with bidets.

[Anonymous]

I grew up in New Zealand and studied history at school. We didn't try and learn everything. We learnt in topics, which has since been criticized as being too eurocentric and has been changed again.

I guess the objective was the study of history and teaching us to write, not trying to do a brief overview of everything. It was more like the approach at university where you concentrate on focused topics in a lot of depth.

In the equivalent of 10th grade I remember studying about the first NZ Labour Government (the Depression, social welfare and NZ in WWII), FDR and the New Deal in the US, Suharto and Sukarno in Indonesia, Treaties involving NZ and its place in the Pacific, the development of the UN, and MLK and the US civil rights movement (Brown vs the Board of Education etc). We did get some US history but certainly nothing about the American Revolution. We probably learned a lot more about the Depression in the US, the New Deal and FDR than my kids did here in APUSH. We didn't learn much about pre colonial and colonial NZ, which is what they've changed since.

The next year (junior year equivalent) the whole curriculum was based around Nationalism, and included the Congress of Vienna in 1815, the unification of Italy and Germany, and the origins of WWI and WWII (but not much about what happened after the outbreak of those wars). Other schools could opt to teach Imperialism - I don't know what that covered.

Senior year, the first half was Elizabeth I and the Stuart kings through to James II, covering politics, religion, and the English civil war. The second half of the year was the French Revolution.

These courses were electives not compulsory. There was no concept of a World History course.

However, they did instill a love of history and I did double major in history at university, and have continued to try and learn the history of places I've lived in or visited since.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why would or should the Brits care about this?

World history is pretty much BS in most countries. It’s a propaganda tool in LatAm, Mideast and Asia. Europe who knows, just inward and Western focused.

I’d say USA does OK with it, APUSH, or western civilizations. Not much for eastern civ.

Japan and China don’t even cover the holocaust.

My British friend didn’t even recall there was a WW II in the Pacific when Japan invaded China and kamakazi’d Oahu, until the movie came out and he went to the museum in Hawaii.

British A levels don’t help either. Starting from age 14 in you only have to study 3-4 of subjects if your own choosing so things get narrow very early and you can avoid maths, history, writing, reading or whatever you want!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I grew up in New Zealand and studied history at school. We didn't try and learn everything. We learnt in topics, which has since been criticized as being too eurocentric and has been changed again.

I guess the objective was the study of history and teaching us to write, not trying to do a brief overview of everything. It was more like the approach at university where you concentrate on focused topics in a lot of depth.

In the equivalent of 10th grade I remember studying about the first NZ Labour Government (the Depression, social welfare and NZ in WWII), FDR and the New Deal in the US, Suharto and Sukarno in Indonesia, Treaties involving NZ and its place in the Pacific, the development of the UN, and MLK and the US civil rights movement (Brown vs the Board of Education etc). We did get some US history but certainly nothing about the American Revolution. We probably learned a lot more about the Depression in the US, the New Deal and FDR than my kids did here in APUSH. We didn't learn much about pre colonial and colonial NZ, which is what they've changed since.

The next year (junior year equivalent) the whole curriculum was based around Nationalism, and included the Congress of Vienna in 1815, the unification of Italy and Germany, and the origins of WWI and WWII (but not much about what happened after the outbreak of those wars). Other schools could opt to teach Imperialism - I don't know what that covered.

Senior year, the first half was Elizabeth I and the Stuart kings through to James II, covering politics, religion, and the English civil war. The second half of the year was the French Revolution.

These courses were electives not compulsory. There was no concept of a World History course.

However, they did instill a love of history and I did double major in history at university, and have continued to try and learn the history of places I've lived in or visited since.

This sounds like my kid’s progressive private school in Wash DC.
Theme based history classes, not in any sort of chrono order, even for lower school students (which creates more confusion than not).
Theme: social justice in the great migration, civil rights, Haitian revolution, Iranian revolution.
Theme: migration of people: slaves to America (no Mideast or LatAm trade or other slaves covered); angel island, Ellis island, central triangle (illegals).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think if you asked a sampling of random Americans in the street, at least half would be likewise shocked.

They might remember something about the White House burning, but probably not who it was Irvin what war.

I don’t remember the White House burning although I don’t remember a lot of trivia in history.

I wonder how U.K. teaches the incredibly massive amount of damage they have done world wide. The colonialism, the slave trade, stealing land especially by their neighbor Ireland. Other countries have done the same but not close to the level that England has done. It’s just a horrible little country.

lol.

Then you must be utterly disgusted by China’s brutality, regime changes, and trading over the centuries of governing 100 million people since year 1100.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think if you asked a sampling of random Americans in the street, at least half would be likewise shocked.

They might remember something about the White House burning, but probably not who it was Irvin what war.

I don’t remember the White House burning although I don’t remember a lot of trivia in history.

I wonder how U.K. teaches the incredibly massive amount of damage they have done world wide. The colonialism, the slave trade, stealing land especially by their neighbor Ireland. Other countries have done the same but not close to the level that England has done. It’s just a horrible little country.

lol.

Then you must be utterly disgusted by China’s brutality, regime changes, and trading over the centuries of governing 100 million people since year 1100.

Did you mean murdering?
If so, it would be more than 100 million for sure.