>>531988 I barely did any British history in school. I have fleeting memories of tudors but mostly remember the suffrage movement and our role in WWII. The main focus of years 10 and 11 were WWII and Cold War. Years 12 and 13 modern history was all Cold War, US civil rights and Tsarist/Soviet Russia.
>>531921 Well I was taught about the Native American stuff with Westward expansion and shit, WWII (though we mostly focussed on Europe and the war through the British Empire like in Asia and shit), spent a long time on the Cold War and especially Kennedy's presidency, also the US Civil War, Vietnam and Iraq. The Civil Rights movement too, that was a big one we spent ages on
>English civil war >Crusades >WW1 >WW2 >some Cold War stuff like Berlin Airlift, Cuban Missile Crisis >Germany and Russia in the interwar period >Ancient Rome from the Gracchi to Augustus >Ancient Sparta and Athens
>>531921 Cold War but thats more about what happened under the Iron Curtain than anything else Then when you eventually go over the 1st and 2nd World War and the interwar period the US gets mentioned every now and then but its focused on Germany, Italy,France and the UK more
In other words the US ,in my experience, has never had a year of history class dedicated to it but it gets a fair mention.
However in A-level (16-18yo) politics you have a year of British politics and then US politics
>>531921 Basically nothing. The British history curriculum is politically a fucking minefield, with each subsequent government changing it.
Right now we have lessons about Roman Britain, but no Churchill. I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't anything on America.
At Universities, there are some views which Americans would fucking shriek at if they knew. Such as the American revolution being absolutely jack fuck about Rights and nearly entirely fought over as the right to keep and hold slaves, which the British were edging closer to outlawing (in the eyes of the American colonies).
>the American revolution being absolutely jack fuck about Rights and nearly entirely fought over as the right to keep and hold slaves, which the British were edging closer to outlawing (in the eyes of the American colonies). >implying that is wrong
I covered the slave trade in secondary school and WW2 in primary, that's the only time America was focused on. Frankly there's been a lot of History and America has only been important for a tiny period. Most of my history lessons focused on ancient history, Egypt and Roman mainly.
When I was in school about six years ago? The Transatlantic Slave Trade for a bit and maybe Martin Luther King. The rest was about Romans, Saxons, Tudors, Stuarts and I think the Victorians were involved as well. If you picked it as a GCSE you also learnt about what I think was Victorian medical advancements and the Jack the Ripper case.
My younger brother by two years was going to learn about the Vietnam War before his death, not sure what else he might have been taught. Nor do I know what they teach now.
>>538158 Personally ended up doing the American Civil war and thought it was great
Officially the topic is: The House Divided: America 1848-1865
Other than the Civil war its about the general split in American society over slavery, and the other issues which all contributed to the breakout of the war, looking at things that happened politically and socially 1848-1861 outside of the war, the practice of slavery, John Brown's raid, etc, fugitive slave act, anything following the Mexican-Amrerican war, occasionally mentioning older stuff such as the nullification crisis
Generally you don't go too much in dept with American history at all, you cover the two world wars from a global perspective, along with the cold war, and at an earlier stage you look at the Native Americans.
American Civil War was the only American topic at Higher or Advanced Higher level
>>531921 >US was part of the GLORIOUS BRITISH EMPIRE until the GLORIOUS BRITISH EMPIRE let them go >There was lots of racism and slavery after the colonists left the GLORIOUS BRITISH EMPIRE >Americans did nothing in WWI >They made the world go into depression and were racist in the 1920's >In WWII the Americans did nothing until the end, leaving the GLORIOUS BRITISH EMPIRE to stand alone, until they dropped nukes on Japan like chumps >The US army in WWII was racist >there was lots of racism in the post war period, unlike in the GLORIOUS BRITISH EMPIRE, who are perfect >All Americans are racist now, and fat and don't need guns and are racist
>>537133 It is wrong, you fucking moron. Boston was the catalyst for independence, and Boston wasn't a place where slavery was particularly common or economically integral. In fact, one of the Americans killed in the Boston Massacre was a free black man.
American here, but probably because it didn't have quite the same upheavel outside of the country of revolt.
The American revolution threw the British out of a colony of theirs, and instituted a non-monarchy. Unusual for the time, but hardly unheard of, a lot of the independent Italian states and the like didn't have hereditary kings either.
The French Revolution on the other hand, really, and very radically changed things. Unlike America, which at first just wanted to live and let live, and was more than willing to sign treaties with monarchies to get some peace (Morocco), France turned into a radically egalitarian state which was more than a little committed to spreading its new ideology at the point of a gun to all of Europe and possibly the world beyond.
Burger here. I remember learning quite a bit about European history in high school. Not so much middle ages, but my first two years of history class were all about renaissance Europe up through the American revolution. The school's reasoning was that those events gave birth to the ideas America was founded on and obviously colonialism had everything to do with us. Learned very little about anything between the revolution and the cold war though. Also how can anyone think 1800s America was boring? Shit was dope as fuck desu.
>>544803 >we basically based our Union off their Confederacy There is not a single shred of evidence to support that. I learned that too. I spent a whole semester learning about the Iroquois, and they were incredibly based. But there is no evidence to support that theory, and a conspicuous absence of evidence.
>>543707 I believe he is making fun of the prime minister saying "If they will whine about this, they will whine about anything" in reference to the Stamp Act which surely led to the Boston tea party and the rest of the revolution.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.