How do they teach wars with America in other countries?
Chris12 wrote:How do they teach wars with America in other countries?
Much betterIn 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
xtc wrote:BABY-eating DEVIL worshippers; get it right
Games_Bond wrote:"
And as to Jason's point - totally agree with you, but completely off-topic.
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?
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.
TUfriend wrote:Well, Lincoln is taught as a great president, although Lee isn't made out to be a bad guy either.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.