How is British history taught in schools?

[I1L2T3]

Thank you for your responses, although I think most did not answer my question.

 

Are you sure it's a genuine gap in knowledge?

 

If you had shown them well known paintings of Henry and pictures of Churchill do you think they still wouldn't have known who they were? I think most people would know them. Montgomery you could maybe forgive. Although a hero and well-recognised person to people growing up any time between the 40s and 70s he's not so visible now.

 

There is a debate to be had though about how history is taught. There's loads of ways to do it.

 

You can teach a grand sweep of history emphasising key events and a few salient points about each. That's just like learning a list though. You just make it more difficult by having a bigger list. It's the kings, BBC queens and wars approach to history. It's limited.

 

Or you could pick a narrow period or targeted aspect of history and study it inside out. As an example I did modern business and economic history for my first degree. Knowing much about Henry VIII wasn't that important. Another example would be social history. Another the history of art. Another the history of medicine - not much need to know about Montgomery there. Although narrative is very important in all of these and that is maybe where the foundation in learning how to memorise narratives is important.

 

Or you could bring history to life - the BBC programme Horrible Histories is a great example for younger kids. It covers all kinds of subjects - the kings and queens, social conditions, medicine.

 

I'm not sure your Toby jug test really cuts the mustard to be honest. I wouldn't lose sleep over it.

[mjw47]

Shanes Teeth. I understand what you mean but cannot agree. I was raised a Catholic although I am an agnostic & have been for many more years than I practiced the faith.

The Catholic faith allows both theft & killing in certain circumstances, if you or your family or friends are dying of starvation it is acceptable to steal for food if there is no other alternative. You can kill if your life or the life of another is threatened & there is no alternative.

But you cannot compare the actions of a desperate individual to the actions of an Empire.

Imagine the planning, imagine the preparation, imagine the time & number of people involved in planning an invasion. Also take into consideration that the people that did all that were already at the top of the tree, their only motivation was greed. There is no doubt that in the long run history, despite its ruthlessness has generally benefited

mankind but we shouldn't simply accept that everything was acceptable.

[callippo]

I would be very disappointed if one of WW2's poorest generals, that happened to end up on the winning side - Montgomery - was rammed down children's throats these days. He was just the best general available. All the others, were even worse than him.

[mjw47]

that is the very funniest idiot thing, I have read online for a while. Empires are not anything anybody can even begin to count.

 

Really? strange, because they have been counted, & that is the accepted number agreed upon by most historians.

I have read quite a few of your previous posts however, & I have to admit that when it comes to idiocy you are an acknowledged expert in the 'takes one to know one' department.

[Harleyman]

I hope that history is not about lists or faces and more about understanding.

 

When Henry VIII was alive how many children would have recognised him without his regalia? Should we not explain that the images made then and after are inaccurate and more importantly why?

 

Why Eisenhower and Churchill did not proceed to remove Montgomery from command in Normandy in June 1944 is a very good example of good leaders seeing beyond failure- the image of Montgomery was more important to the outcome than his battlefield skill.

 

Perhaps we should be more concerned about what adults think history education is about.

 

Montgomery was considered to be a competent general but also considered to be over cautious. He was certainly not in the mold of Patton or Rommel

 

His argument that the allies should push for Berlin in a single thrust was seriously flawed simply because he did not take into account that the Germans could still launch attacks on his flanks and cut him off

 

Eisenhowers strategy for a push into Germany on a broad front was by far the better plan

 

Montgomery's plan to seize the bridges on the Rhine as far as Arnhem was sound enough but General Browning chose to ignore reports from the Dutch Underground or bother to really study RAF Recce photos which indicated that there were one or two elite Panzer divisons in the area and then there were screwups by the dozen after the Paras were dropped too far from Arnhem

[mjw47]

Montgomery was considered to be a competent general but also considered to be over cautious. He was certainly not in the mold of Patton or Rommel

 

His argument that the allies should push for Berlin in a single thrust was seriously flawed simply because he did not take into account that the Germans could still launch attacks on his flanks and cut him off

 

Eisenhowers strategy for a push into Germany on a broad front was by far the better plan

 

Montgomery's plan to seize the bridges on the Rhine as far as Arnhem was sound enough but General Browning chose to ignore reports from the Dutch Underground or bother to really study RAF Recce photos which indicated that there were one or two elite Panzer divisons in the area and then there were screwups by the dozen after the Paras were dropped too far from Arnhem

 

My father served under Montgomery in North Africa, he was extremely disparaging in his views of the man & claimed that Monty was generally disliked amongst the Troops.

He was regarded as a self promoting glory hunter who was more concerned as to his place in history than anything else.

Whether that was an altogether fair assessment I don't know as I haven't studied his career in any detail myself.

[callippo]

Really? strange, because they have been counted, & that is the accepted number agreed upon by most historians.

 

perhaps you'd care to supply a link to back up possibly the most ridiculous claim I have ever read. There have been more 'empires' than that over the past 5,000 years in just the Middle East alone.

[jfish1936]

I was advised to drop History as a subject at school, because I was so bad at it.

Later, I took to reading historical novels, such as Conan Doyles "White Company", and Dennis Wheatley's "Roger Brook" series. These prompted me to look up "real history" books.

I'm now the family expert on history, and have done well in many historical trivia quizzes.

 

Recognising people from likenesses -- well, that's tricky. I have several photos of me; not all of them are recognised by my grandchildren. The classic was when we had old 8mm movies put on DVD, showing our children when young. Grandson's response was "That's not my Daddy! I'm bigger than that boy!"

Should we recognise the person, or the most common image? Henry VIII was a slim athletic young king who later changed into the obese person of later portraits.

[mjw47]

perhaps you'd care to supply a link to back up possibly the most ridiculous claim I have ever read. There have been more 'empires' than that over the past 5,000 years in just the Middle East alone.

 

No I wouldn't. There are a number of posters on here who appear to take a perverse pleasure in being deliberately contentious for no apparent reason other than,, I presume, to enliven their monotonous lives.

You are one of them.

The figure of 69 + America was taken from a literary review by Max Hastings of a book written by Niall Ferguson on the British Empire.

I am well aware that there are many hundreds of Regimes which claimed to be Empires. However, claiming something does not make it fact.

For instance, you claimed that 'Empires are not something you can begin to count'.

There are extensive lists of the number of regimes which claim empire status, it's one of the things historians do, categorize.

 

Max Hastings however, was referring to the number of Empires which existed upon which there could be no real argument as to their status.

When I say no real argument I do of course exclude certain SF posters who are prepared to argue over 'how many beans make five'.

 

Now, if you wish to continue this debate I recommend that you take it up with Sir Max himself. Personally I am quite prepared to accept his definition on the subject, if you are not then write to the man. I am sure he will be eternally grateful for your input.

[callippo]

69 plus 1 empires is just a totally spurious claim. By any standard, the United States counts as an empire same way as the Assyrian one did 4,500 years ago. That doesn't necessarily make it some kind of evil thing. You should be able to post this alleged Max Hastings article which for all we know you have just made up. All you have to do is type the headline into google, and up it will come.