## History depends on who's teaching it

Post by TUfriend » Fri Dec 28, 2012 8:42 am

I'd be interested to know how the Revolutionary War is taught in Britain. I know some schools in confederate states learn the civil war completely differently than in union states. How do they teach wars with America in other countries?
Heil Toddman, the Wonderful Wizard of Odd
I'm a nerd with a dangerous side.
See my most recent TRUE story, "SPL Initiation", here.
Read my most recent FICTIONAL story, "The Birth of a Whovian", here

### Re: History depends on who's teaching it

Post by Chris12 » Fri Dec 28, 2012 8:56 am

> How do they teach wars with America in other countries?

Much better In other school america isn't glorrified to the in my opinon extremes. Whasington isn't taught to be an invincible cyborg that runs of freedom power and the Britsh aren't taught to have been puppy eating demon worshippers Its a more neutral view. Of course American schools have more neutral teaching on France or Italy for example.
I guess that while America depicts themselves as noble freedom fighters, Britain would depict them as traitors that got lucky...or they completely forgot they ever fought in the colonies to begin with

### Re: History depends on who's teaching it

Post by xtc » Fri Dec 28, 2012 10:02 am

> Chris12 wrote:

> > How do they teach wars with America in other countries?

> Much better In other school america isn't glorrified to the in my opinon extremes. Whasington isn't taught to be an invincible cyborg that runs of freedom power and the Britsh aren't taught to have been puppy eating demon worshippers Its a more neutral view. Of course American schools have more neutral teaching on France or Italy for example.
> I guess that while America depicts themselves as noble freedom fighters, Britain would depict them as traitors that got lucky...or they completely forgot they ever fought in the colonies to begin with

Please!
BABY-eating DEVIL worshippers; get it right!
No, not traitors. The Pilgrim Fathers were fed up with suffering from religious oppression so they set off to found a country where THEY could be the oppressors.
Boxer shorts are cool,
but little speedos rule!
More by the same author: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=22729

### Re: History depends on who's teaching it

Post by TUfriend » Fri Dec 28, 2012 11:14 am

> xtc wrote:BABY-eating DEVIL worshippers; get it right

Oh come on. I've only eaten one baby. You can't make assumptions like that.
Last edited by TUfriend on Fri Dec 28, 2012 3:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Heil Toddman, the Wonderful Wizard of Odd
I'm a nerd with a dangerous side.
See my most recent TRUE story, "SPL Initiation", here.
Read my most recent FICTIONAL story, "The Birth of a Whovian", here

### Re: History depends on who's teaching it

Post by Jason Toddman » Fri Dec 28, 2012 12:27 pm

Unfortunately the tradition in America now seems to be sacrificing young school aged children to glorify the NRA!
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: History depends on who's teaching it

Post by Games_Bond » Fri Dec 28, 2012 12:51 pm

I have to say I don't remember the War of Independence being anything other than touched on in our school. So lightly touched on that the question of "why did they want to be independent?" was a relevant one. I think I learned more about the war when I visited the USA (particularly when I visited Boston). Had I been a colonialist at the time, when someone faced me with the words: "Taxation without Representation is tyranny!" my reaction would have been something like: "Er, yeah. Good point. We better make sure you get fair representation from now on then."
And as to Jason's point - totally agree with you, but completely off-topic.

### Re: History depends on who's teaching it

Post by Jason Toddman » Fri Dec 28, 2012 1:41 pm

> Games_Bond wrote:"
> And as to Jason's point - totally agree with you, but completely off-topic.

No more so than the reference to demon-worshipping baby eaters, which is what I was referencing.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: History depends on who's teaching it

Post by truly_trussed » Fri Dec 28, 2012 6:02 pm

I had a classmate in high school who was from Merrie Olde England and she signed in my yearbook "If Paul Revere had laryngitis you'd still be ours!"
For history buffs 2 books I recommend are Lies My Teacher Told Me by James W. Loewen and Don't Know Much About History by Kenneth G. Davis. They're both in paperback and should run about $15 to $20 US. My history prof said history was written by the winners.

### Re: History depends on who's teaching it

Post by MHW » Fri Dec 28, 2012 7:48 pm

More toward the second part of the original post, about other countries learning about America's wars, I live in Canada. We learned a little bit about the war of 1812. The focus was more on the facts of the lead up to everything, acts of aggression on both sides. Looking back at it now, the course material contained actually a surprisingly low amount of bias for either side of the conflict.

### Re: History depends on who's teaching it

Post by Kyle » Fri Dec 28, 2012 8:49 pm

> TUfriend wrote:I'd be interested to know how the Revolutionary War is taught in Britain. I know some schools in confederate states learn the civil war completely differently than in union states. How do they teach wars with America in other countries?

As someone who grew up in one of those "Confederate" states, I'm kind of interested how they teach it in Yankee states now.

### Re: History depends on who's teaching it

Post by drawscore » Fri Dec 28, 2012 9:00 pm

"History is a pack of lies, agreed to by the winners."
Drawscore

### Re: History depends on who's teaching it

Post by TUfriend » Fri Dec 28, 2012 9:30 pm

> Kyle wrote:

> > TUfriend wrote:I'd be interested to know how the Revolutionary War is taught in Britain. I know some schools in confederate states learn the civil war completely differently than in union states. How do they teach wars with America in other countries?

> As someone who grew up in one of those "Confederate" states, I'm kind of interested how they teach it in Yankee states now.

Well, Lincoln is taught as a great president, although Lee isn't made out to be a bad guy either. Although, my teacher did express some hate for South Carolina for starting the whole thing. And Texas for joining the union and then leaving a few years later.
Heil Toddman, the Wonderful Wizard of Odd
I'm a nerd with a dangerous side.
See my most recent TRUE story, "SPL Initiation", here.
Read my most recent FICTIONAL story, "The Birth of a Whovian", here

### Re: History depends on who's teaching it

Post by Jason Toddman » Fri Dec 28, 2012 10:39 pm

> TUfriend wrote:Well, Lincoln is taught as a great president, although Lee isn't made out to be a bad guy either.

True; I've always understood Lee was conflicted about who to side with. In fact, he was such a great general that one teacher in my school said that had Lee sided with the North instead of the South, the Civil War would have been won by the North in less than half the time.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: History depends on who's teaching it

Post by Kyle » Fri Dec 28, 2012 10:54 pm

So basically, nothing is really different than what we learn in the South, except for perhaps outrage towards South Carolina, which I've never seen expressed before.
Lee didn't want to leave the Union but at the time many people felt a stronger connection to their state than the country as a whole, especially in the South, and Lee wasn't any different and didn't want to fight against his family who lived in Virginia.

### Re: History depends on who's teaching it

Post by Jason Toddman » Fri Dec 28, 2012 11:08 pm

> Kyle wrote:Lee didn't want to leave the Union but at the time many people felt a stronger connection to their state than the country as a whole, especially in the South, and Lee wasn't any different and didn't want to fight against his family who lived in Virginia.

I meant to mention WHY he was conflicted, but you said it better than I would have anyway. In any case, it was always understood here that Lee was a good man who had to make a tough decision. However, I also believe as my teacher did that had he sided with the North the Civil War would have been much shorter and far less bloody. One man actually made *that* much difference in the war.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: History depends on who's teaching it

Post by Kyle » Sat Dec 29, 2012 8:53 am

I don't know if it would have been over that fast as the South had some other good generals and the North really only had Grant and Sherman who were very competent but I would agree with the general statement. Lee sticking with Virginia when they seceded (they didn't secede until after the Ft. Sumter battle) made a huge difference.

### Re: History depends on who's teaching it

Post by Jason Toddman » Sat Dec 29, 2012 11:42 am

I think you pointed out one good reason right there; the North didn't have that many great generals; having one more of Lee's caliber would have been a great plus. But also, many of the most notable Confederate victories belonged to Lee. Of course, it's possible at least some of those victories would have taken place anyway without him, but not likely all - and had Lee fought for the North in place of certain other Union generals, the Union might have prevailed in battles that they lost in actual reality and therefore ended the war sooner.
Anyway, the original point was as far as I know the general consensus is that General Lee was a great man who simply fought for the side that lost; I don't think anyone considers him to be a villain for it. Nor Jefferson Davis not any of the others who fought for the south either. Even though the Confederacy essentially fought for the right to retain slavery, it was not (or at least is no longer) considered a war between good and evil unlike, say, the Allies versus the Axis Powers in WWII, which still IS thought of in such terms.
I understand there is still acrimony in the South about the Civil War, but afaik such acrimony completely disappeared in the North generations ago.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: History depends on who's teaching it

Post by TUfriend » Sat Dec 29, 2012 12:03 pm

> Kyle wrote:So basically, nothing is really different than what we learn in the South, except for perhaps outrage towards South Carolina, which I've never seen expressed before.
> Lee didn't want to leave the Union but at the time many people felt a stronger connection to their state than the country as a whole, especially in the South, and Lee wasn't any different and didn't want to fight against his family who lived in Virginia.

Not all school s do it, but I was taking with someone from Texas on Facebook and she was taught that the south hadn't lost, and that the Yankees were going to come again.
Heil Toddman, the Wonderful Wizard of Odd
I'm a nerd with a dangerous side.
See my most recent TRUE story, "SPL Initiation", here.
Read my most recent FICTIONAL story, "The Birth of a Whovian", here

### Re: History depends on who's teaching it

Post by Chris12 » Sat Dec 29, 2012 12:05 pm

You know, this war really isn't my thing but from what i hear common arguments like how Lee was a great general and the north apparantly lacked skill in both their generals and soldiers are part of what is called ''the lost cause'' that glorifies the southern viewpoint. I guess i agree that Lee was the best general in the war but Grant was a very good one as well.

### Re: History depends on who's teaching it

Post by TUfriend » Sat Dec 29, 2012 12:13 pm

The south should have won. They had the better military, better generals, better understanding of the geography. And they only had to play defense. It's a good ring they didn't though.
Heil Toddman, the Wonderful Wizard of Odd
I'm a nerd with a dangerous side.
See my most recent TRUE story, "SPL Initiation", here.
Read my most recent FICTIONAL story, "The Birth of a Whovian", here

### Re: History depends on who's teaching it

Post by Chris12 » Sat Dec 29, 2012 12:19 pm

> TUfriend wrote:The south should have won. They had the better military, better generals, better understanding of the geography. And they only had to play defense. It's a good ring they didn't though.

If they had a better millitary, better understanding of the geography and ended up losing then they didn't have the better generals after all. If you fight with an advantage and still lose its the generals fault, or that of the enemy generals skill. I thought the north had the better army in terms of equipment and numbers so that must have played a part.

### Re: History depends on who's teaching it

Post by Jason Toddman » Sat Dec 29, 2012 12:40 pm

Actually Tufriend the North had the better military. They had more men, more equipment, and - most of all - the North had the industrial capacity to create more military equipment. The South on the other hand lacked the industrial technology of the North but relied mainly on crops like cotton for their income. I believe even their railroads had been built mainly from materials created in the North. Most of the major factories were in the northern states. All this gave the North a huge advantage which ultimately made a huge difference. The South never had any real chance of prevailing in a sustained war; their only chance were in a few quick decisive victories as they sought to invade and capture Washington DC - the only serious invasion they ever attempted. Unfortunately for them they failed (though they came rather close) and any chance for ultimate victory was lost. They held out a long time, but the end was rather inevitable.
Mexico and Britain made some half-hearted attempts to support the South, but fortunately for the North they had the sense to not make us TOO annoyed with them.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: History depends on who's teaching it

Post by Kyle » Sat Dec 29, 2012 1:00 pm

> Jason Toddman wrote:I think you pointed out one good reason right there; the North didn't have that many great generals; having one more of Lee's caliber would have been a great plus. But also, many of the most notable Confederate victories belonged to Lee. Of course, it's possible at least some of those victories would have taken place anyway without him, but not likely all - and had Lee fought for the North in place of certain other Union generals, the Union might have prevailed in battles that they lost in actual reality and therefore ended the war sooner.
> Anyway, the original point was as far as I know the general consensus is that General Lee was a great man who simply fought for the side that lost; I don't think anyone considers him to be a villain for it. Nor Jefferson Davis not any of the others who fought for the south either. Even though the Confederacy essentially fought for the right to retain slavery, it was not (or at least is no longer) considered a war between good and evil unlike, say, the Allies versus the Axis Powers in WWII, which still IS thought of in such terms.
> I understand there is still acrimony in the South about the Civil War, but afaik such acrimony completely disappeared in the North generations ago.

Lee was one of the very few people who was generally well-respected by both sides, even during the time of the Civil War, which is saying quite a lot. It probably does help Lee was never a big supporter of slavery, but never took a stand against it either.
The Civil War is definitely bigger here in the South than in the North, but I've never actually heard anyone say some of the things which are claimed by Northerners on the Internet, at least not in schools or especially in college. I can usually tell right away by how they describe the South in cases like this who has and hasn't actually spent time down here.
Somebody above mentioned the North having the better army. The North had a significantly larger population and was much more industrialized which finally did the South in. The only city in the Confederacy which had much industry at all was Richmond. The South's goal wasn't really to beat the North so much as to outlast it and gain independence much like the colonies did in the American Revolution. It didn't work as well as the first time.

### Re: History depends on who's teaching it

Post by truly_trussed » Sat Dec 29, 2012 1:53 pm

> MHW wrote:More toward the second part of the original post, about other countries learning about America's wars, I live in Canada. We learned a little bit about the war of 1812. The focus was more on the facts of the lead up to everything, acts of aggression on both sides. Looking back at it now, the course material contained actually a surprisingly low amount of bias for either side of the conflict.

Hi MHW, the War of 1812 is pretty much a forgotten war, at least in the U.S. However, there are some popular tourist attractions to visit including Fort McHenry in Baltimore, the General Brock Monument in Queenston, ON (near Niagara Falls) and Fort York in Toronto. It's also the Bicentennial of the War and Maryland has issued a commemorative license plate.
The first time I saw a Laura Secord candy store in a Canadian mall I assumed she was the founder of the chain. After all there are chains such as Russell Stover, Fannie May, Fanny Farmer, Gertrude Hawk and Mrs. See's Candies. Found out from my Canadian friends that Ms. Secord is a Canadian hero and icon. She's the Canadian version of Paul Revere who actually completed her mission. (There are questions if Paul Revere actually made his midnight ride and, if so, how far did he get.) Ms. Secord didn't have a horse either, she walked.
The War actually become part of pop culture in the Spring of 1959 when Johnny Horton topped both the Pop and Country Music charts with The Battle of New Orleans. It was the Number 1 country song of the year and even made the Top 20 in the U.K. Check it out on Youtube.
Not to be outdone, Toronto DJ Mike Darow recorded an answer record. Go to Youtube and enter The Chums The Battle of Queenston Heights.
Take care, T.T.

### Re: History depends on who's teaching it

Post by drawscore » Sat Dec 29, 2012 9:50 pm

>>>The War actually become part of pop culture in the Spring of 1959 when Johnny Horton topped both the Pop and Country Music charts with The Battle of New Orleans. It was the Number 1 country song of the year and even made the Top 20 in the U.K. Check it out on Youtube.
Not to be outdone, Toronto DJ Mike Darow recorded an answer record. Go to Youtube and enter The Chums The Battle of Queenston Heights.<<<
And don't forget the parody by Homer and Jethro - The Battle of Kookamonga
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVLe_qUA89c
Drawscore

### Re: History depends on who's teaching it

Post by Jason Toddman » Sun Dec 30, 2012 9:09 am

I sometimes wonder how long it would have taken the Southern states to outlaw slavery on their own had the Civil War never happened, even assuming they had been allowed to secede peacefully.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: History depends on who's teaching it

Post by drawscore » Sun Dec 30, 2012 1:55 pm

There was a book in a similar vein, still available at Amazon: "If the South Had Won the Civil War," by MacKinlay Kantor. As the title suggests, it presents an alternate time line. The war still occurs, but the southern states win their independence. Essentially the same as if they had seceded without a war. http://www.amazon.com/South-Had-Won-Civ ... 0312869495 You might find a used copy for sale on eBay, or in circulation from your local library.
Kantor also wrote "For God and Country," upon which the Disney motion picture "Follow Me, Boys!" was based.
Drawscore

### Re: History depends on who's teaching it

Post by Jason Toddman » Sun Dec 30, 2012 3:29 pm

> drawscore wrote:There was a book in a similar vein, still available at Amazon: "If the South Had Won the Civil War," by MacKinlay Kantor. As the title suggests, it presents an alternate time line. The war still occurs, but the southern states win their independence. Essentially the same as if they had seceded without a war. http://www.amazon.com/South-Had-Won-Civ ... 0312869495 You might find a used copy for sale on eBay, or in circulation from your local library.
> Kantor also wrote "For God and Country," upon which the Disney motion picture "Follow Me, Boys!" was based.
> Drawscore

Thanks. I'll definitely have to have a look at that.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: History depends on who's teaching it

Post by Kyle » Sun Dec 30, 2012 6:20 pm

> Jason Toddman wrote:I sometimes wonder how long it would have taken the Southern states to outlaw slavery on their own had the Civil War never happened, even assuming they had been allowed to secede peacefully.

That's always been something I've wondered too. Some of the upper-class Southerners at the time (and many in the North, actually) believed slavery would slowly die a natural death as people didn't have to rely on it. Jefferson Davis was actually a believer in that theory. At least that's what they said. Whether that would have ever occurred or not is debatable. It had been assumed by most slavery was on its way out around the time of the Revolution as well. Then Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin and made cotton extremely profitable in the South and suddenly slavery was back in business, so to speak.

### Re: History depends on who's teaching it

Post by Jason Toddman » Mon Dec 31, 2012 12:26 pm

> Kyle wrote:Then Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin and made cotton extremely profitable in the South and suddenly slavery was back in business, so to speak.

Yes, I've heard this before too. This is believed to have NOT been his intention, however - he sought to make life easier for people not harder. Even though no one knows for certain what his views on slavery were, he was likely not in favor of it as he lived in New England. If the irony of the situation he created was noticed back then, his reaction to it is, afaik, unknown.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...