How is British history taught in schools?

[I1L2T3]

The problem with history is that it's all in the past.

 

People look back at it (with the [sometimes] clarity of hindsight,

Analyse it [ again, with the clarity of hindsight]

and often re-write it to conform with 'modern' morés and opinions.

 

An example: There has been a lot on TV today about the 70th anniversary of the Dams raid.

 

The Dambusters film was remade recently. The film makers decided to 'change' a few facts.

 

Guy Gibson had a dog - a black Labrador which was called "N------". That was the name of the dog - not a slur against people of the dark-skinned persuasion.

 

The peole who re-made the film refused to use the dog's name - 'because we might offend somebody'.

 

Bloody ridiculous! - If somebody used that word today to describe somebody, it could (very properly) be described as 'racist' but to refuse to quote the name of a dog which was killed 70 years ago 'because it might offend somebody' is simply stupid.

 

So history - as portrayed in the re-make of the film - had to be re-written.

 

I suspect that much of History - British and that of many other countries - has been 're-written' to suit popular opinion.

 

As for how British History is taught in schools? - Probably in a very different manner to the way it was taught when I was a child.

 

It is all in the past. Even recent history

 

Couple of interesting stories this week:

 

1. The assassination of Alexander Litvinenko. Obviously a salient event in British-Russian post-cold war relations. But much of what really happened may never be publicly known. At best it might be 30-40-50 years before details are released. Try blending that into an account. It may actually be easier for a historian in 50 years to do it justice.

 

2. Turkish discomfort over the Armenian genocide in 1915. Captain Terossian, an Armenian and one of the officers of the Ottoman armies at Gallipoli, detailed his experiences in a biography. Even nearly a 100 years later some Turkish academics still struggle to accept that Armenians and Turks fought on the same side at Gallipoli. Read this:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-armenian-hero-turkey-would-prefer-to-forget-8612890.html

 

History is what you want it to be. Anybody can selectively stack up evidence to present a view of events. Sometimes the evidence is not there to stack up.

[Michael_W]

I wont argue with youir opinion of Cheney.He was a disgrace to politics and America. His boss George Bush dodged the Vietnam draft by joinng the Texas Air National Guard. His dad Bush Senior was pals with the General Commanding that unit and got his son signed up.

Bush junior however did do a lot for helping in the fight against the spread of HIV in Africa

 

There wont be any glory for either of them in the annals of American history though

 

---------- Post added 18-05-2013 at 20:40 ----------

 

 

Why should it? The Roman Empire is still a fascinating subject for historians and compared to the British Empire much smaller in size and influence.

 

I'm not saying the British empire will not be a fascinating subject, I'm saying it's influence or indeed it's legacy will have become less significant or somewhat forgotten.

I would suggest the British Empire is still fairly recent history, in a few hundred years time it won't be ..... the Aussies will probably have dropped the Union flag from its own as a very small example.

It's not so long ago that many US citizens could trace there ancestry back to these Islands and within a generation that has changed ..... therefore the British link became less significant. I'm fairly certain many of those who rid America of British colonialism would have been of British ancestry, historically of course we all refer to them as Americans.

What I am saying is Britain has had it's heyday, the US has in my opinion had the biggest influence over the last 80 years or so (even the English language is Americanised) and at some point the US in turn may concede that influence to some other dominant nation on the world stage, only time will tell !

[Harleyman]

I'm not saying the British empire will not be a fascinating subject, I'm saying it's influence or indeed it's legacy will have become less significant or somewhat forgotten.

I would suggest the British Empire is still fairly recent history, in a few hundred years time it won't be ..... the Aussies will probably have dropped the Union flag from its own as a very small example.

It's not so long ago that many US citizens could trace there ancestry back to these Islands and within a generation that has changed ..... therefore the British link became less significant. I'm fairly certain many of those who rid America of British colonialism would have been of British ancestry, historically of course we all refer to them as Americans.

What I am saying is Britain has had it's heyday, the US has in my opinion had the biggest influence over the last 80 years or so (even the English language is Americanised) and at some point the US in turn may concede that influence to some other dominant nation on the world stage, only time will tell !

 

The US like mostl nations is gradually changing. BY 2050 just under half of all Americans will trace their ancestry to that of Mexico or other parts of south America. The language will still be American-English. By third generation American born, those of Mexcan ancestry dont even speak Spanish anymore or even understand it except for a word here and there. The US flag and Constituion will still very much exist. What part it will still play in a military role remains to be seen.

Obama appears to be the first US President who doesn't want the US leading the charge into the world's trouble spots. He has already stated that any outside intervention in the civil war in Syria must be led by the Arab and European countries with the US only in a supporting role.... Good news to me!

 

The US will move ever closer to Asia in the decades to come and perhaps in 70 or 80 years from now there will be some kind of loose federation between the US, Canada amd many of the south Amrerican countries.

 

The bad news though is that the world's population will by then have increased to around 10 billion and if no catastrophe occurs to wipe out a significant percentage of the earthly population in the meantime then we're all looking at Armageddon

[mjw47]

Oh I dont know about that buddy. Take the English language, spoken throughout the world as an official language or a second language and gaining evermore usage in China in the matter of business and commerce. As a matter of fact in decades to come one out of three Chinese will be able to speak it

Then there's English Common Law either used as an official law as in the US and Commonwealth countries or variations of it

Then there's the most popular and most beloved game in the world..... football.

These are a few of lasting legacies of the British Empire and what it passed on to much of the world, geographically immense compared to the size of the Roman Empire

 

The English language, written using Roman letters, as are the languages of Spain, France Germany, Italy & most other European countries. Britain, a country named by the Romans as are numerous other European countries.

America, a country whose political system includes a Senate invented by the Romans.

 

Not bad for an Empire that fell over 1,500 years ago.

 

Will we have had the same impact on history 1,500 years from now? Who knows?

 

Personally, as far as Britain is concerned, I think we will play the part that the Greeks played in the Roman story.

We will be regarded in a similar light in the American story, influential in the beginning, inconsequential in the end.

 

Obviously, it will all depend on whether or not we can sort out the giant Ponzi scheme which is currently referred to as the Western financial system.

 

If we cannot, then American hegemony may go down as the shortest lived 'Top Dog' status in history.

[Chris_Sleeps]

(even the English language is Americanised)

I enjoy how you wrote that and kept the British spelling.

 

[Harleyman]

The English language, written using Roman letters, as are the languages of Spain, France Germany, Italy & most other European countries. Britain, a country named by the Romans as are numerous other European countries.

America, a country whose political system includes a Senate invented by the Romans.

 

Not bad for an Empire that fell over 1,500 years ago.

 

Will we have had the same impact on history 1,500 years from now? Who knows?

 

Personally, as far as Britain is concerned, I think we will play the part that the Greeks played in the Roman story.

We will be regarded in a similar light in the American story, influential in the beginning, inconsequential in the end.

 

Obviously, it will all depend on whether or not we can sort out the giant Ponzi scheme which is currently referred to as the Western financial system.

 

If we cannot, then American hegemony may go down as the shortest lived 'Top Dog' status in history.

 

Well it dont really matter one way or another what history will say about America one hundred years from now. I wont be around to read it

[mjw47]

Well it dont really matter one way or another what history will say about America one hundred years from now. I wont be around to read it

 

Yes, well that's what I thought, the first time around.

[Harleyman]

I enjoy how you wrote that and kept the British spelling.

 

 

How about "programme" (English) and "program" (American). Is it some kind of elitism that an extra "m" and an "e' should be added at the end of the word and which serves no purpose whatsoever?

 

 

"Labour" as opposed to "labor" or "harbour" as opposed to "harbor"

 

Why the letter "u" in the words. English people dont pronounce the words as 'lay-bower" or har-bower" but the word "our" is pronounced as "ow-er" though

 

It's no wonder that most foreigners find English pronunciation of words as completely baffling.

 

Let's eliminate the redundancy and all go American

[Chris_Sleeps]

"Labour" as opposed to "labor" or "harbour" as opposed to "harbor"

Blame the french for the first one.

 

I'm all for spelling reform. Bring back some old anglo-saxon words too. I jest ye not.

[Harleyman]

Blame the french for the first one.

 

I'm all for spelling reform. Bring back some old anglo-saxon words too. I jest ye not.

 

I had an aunt who used to finish every conversation on the phone with "au revoir" although those were the only two French words she knew.

 

Poor lady! miles above her social station