# American Revolution -- British are bad guys



## Bullgrit (Oct 8, 2013)

My 12 year old son is currently studying the American Revolutionary period of US history. He just this moment asked me about this:

In the US, the colonists are the good guys and the British are presented as the bad guys. The British are the oppressors, fighting against American freedom. (My son understands this is a simplification. We've discussed "good guys" and "bad guys" in history and war many times.)

How does British elementary education present the colonists and the British? He asked, "Do they say the British were bad guys fighting against American freedom?"

That's a good question -- one that could be asked of any war. Like how do the Japanese and Germans (and Italians) present their "sides" regarding WWII?

Anyway. I told my son that I have some British sources I could ask right now 

Bonus: What do other nations teach about the American Revolution? I know it's not as directly important to other nations, but I'd think that the subject/time period would be at least mentioned in some way. (Our education covers important chapters in other countries' histories.)

Bullgrit


----------



## Morrus (Oct 8, 2013)

I don't recall it particularly covered at school.  I'm sure it was briefly covered at some point (because I was aware it had happened) but I have no specific recollection of it.  That said, I'm also sure the curriculum the kids do is very different these days.  I'm 100% sure I'd remember if I'd been taught we were "bad guys" and that it was about "freedom", though; that seems most unlikely.  I think it was taught in the context of the overall ongoing conflict with France, which is given some importance.

The Germans are taught that their country was in the wrong in WWII; indeed certain symbols from that horrific time are illegal in the entire country.


----------



## GSHamster (Oct 9, 2013)

Don't forget that the British have a lot more history to cover. In particular, that time period has the Jacobite Rebellions, the Seven Years War, and then the struggle with Napoleon at the end of the century.

My guess that they would minimize the importance of the American Revolution in comparison to these other wars. Of course, that's assuming they teach that century's history at all.

After all, how much are American children taught about the Spanish-American War, or even the War of 1812?

The American Revolution is your origin story. Thus like the origin stories of Spider-man and Superman, it assumes a vastly more significant role in your cultural mythology.


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 9, 2013)

Québec was conquered by the British and in Québec schools, they are the baddies. In Canada, the conquest is mentioned has something positive. It really is what the powers that be want it to be.

Same for the Constitution. For Québecois, the night it was negociated (without Québec's Prime Minister present) it is called the Night of Long Knifes. In Canada it is called the Kitchen Meeting. Two nations, two history.


----------



## Kaodi (Oct 9, 2013)

I do not know about Britain but in Canada I think we sort of depict the United Empire Loyalists as the good guys. Americans get depicted as bad guys insofar as they were jerks to the United Empire Loyalists. Other than that there is not a lot of focus on the good-guy/bad-guy narrative; just the our guys/their guys one. Really, we do not so much learn about the American Revolution during the compulsive history component of grade school so much as we learn about the United Empire Loyalist migration into Canada at that time.


----------



## Kaodi (Oct 9, 2013)

How are the French King and aristocrats from that time depicted, [MENTION=55961]goldomark[/MENTION] ?


----------



## Nagol (Oct 9, 2013)

Kaodi said:


> How are the French King and aristocrats from that time depicted, [MENTION=55961]goldomark[/MENTION] ?




Rarely discussed in Upper Canada, from memory.  The few times they are mentioned is from slightly later events affecting North America, like the Louisiana sale.

The actions of the French King that formed the Quebec colonies and then permanently exiled the colonists when they had the temerity to want to return after their multi-year contracts were complete was never discussed.


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 9, 2013)

Kaodi said:


> How are the French King and aristocrats from that time depicted, <!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention -->@_*goldomark*_<!-- END TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention --> ?



People who abandonned us, and North America, for the sugar islands of the caribbeans.


----------



## Scrivener of Doom (Oct 9, 2013)

Bullgrit said:


> (snip) How does British elementary education present the colonists and the British? He asked, "Do they say the British were bad guys fighting against American freedom?" (snip)




I'm Australian but grew up in a time when we learnt a fair bit of British history.

The American rebellion, oops, revolution (  ) was painted fairly accurately: as a desire for independence from the UK. "Freedom" was never the buzzword used, and that seems to have gained more currency in the past couple of decades as "freedom" has declined.

As for Japan, the WWII period - and the pre-WWII period that included the Rape of Nanjing et al - is basically glossed over in their textbooks. I actually now live in a city in the Philippines which was firebombed by the Japanese in WWII. Fortunately, though, Filipinos have really, really, really short memories (the US atrocities of 1898 onwards where around 10% of the population - men, women and children - are virtually unknown now but the records still exist, ironically enough, in the US Senate where enquiries were held into the massacres) so the Japanese are very much forgiven. The Japanese also build a lot of Philippine infrastructure - and donate cash to pay for it - so that keeps the politicians onside as well as they pocket, on average, 200% of the value of all infrastructure projects that take place in their region.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Oct 9, 2013)

Bullgrit said:


> My 12 year old son is currently studying the American Revolutionary period of US history. He just this moment asked me about this:
> 
> In the US, the colonists are the good guys and the British are presented as the bad guys. The British are the oppressors, fighting against American freedom. (My son understands this is a simplification. We've discussed "good guys" and "bad guys" in history and war many times.)



As long as he understands that it IS a simplification.  The tragedy is that the simplest version of events is all US students are likely to be taught, and even setting aside the historical significance there are so many truly fascinating people (on both sides) and events in the Revolution to learn about.


----------



## Dioltach (Oct 9, 2013)

I'm English but grew up in the Netherlands. The American Revolution was taught very simply: "No taxation without representation", the Boston Tea Party, not much else. Nothing was said about the British perspective. That said, a lot of the history we were taught was like that. With the French Revolution the focus was entirely on the economic differences before the revolution; if the Terror was mentioned at all, it was just that one word without any explanation.

A lot was made of Dutch achievements: the great sea battles that they won against the Spanish and the British (nothing about Camperdown, though), their revolt against the Spanish, their great explorers and colonies (but nothing about the police actions in Indonesia). Slavery was only mentioned in the context of other countries' history.

The only subjects we studied in any depth were the Industrial Revolution, the rise of Communism and the Russian Revolution. Five years in a row, despite the fact that this was the late 1980s and early 1990s and Communism in Europe was visibly failing at the time. Sure it was an important factor in world history, but there were other things too, most of which were just ignored. (I'm sorry, when I look back on my time at school I can get very angry about limited the education was and how much more I could have learned, or had to find out by myself.)


----------



## Morrus (Oct 9, 2013)

Scrivener of Doom said:


> The American rebellion, oops, revolution (  ) was painted fairly accurately: as a desire for independence from the UK. "Freedom" was never the buzzword used, and that seems to have gained more currency in the past couple of decades as "freedom" has declined.




Yeah, it's definitely portrayed as "independence", and not "freedom".  That basic emotive language choice does show how easy it is to do, though.


----------



## darrell_uk (Oct 9, 2013)

I'm sorry to say that as far as I am aware it's not taught at all in the UK.

That said, you need to bear in mind that, although history is on the national curriculum, schools can select which of a number of syllabuses they choose to teach, resulting in different places concentrating on different things, and even one school concentrating on different things in different exam years. The "o-level" course I studied oh so long ago now was on 20th century history for instance.


----------



## delericho (Oct 9, 2013)

Okay, bearing in mind that, like a great many things, the Scottish system is a little different from the rest of the UK...



Bullgrit said:


> My 12 year old son is currently studying the American Revolutionary period of US history. He just this moment asked me about this:
> 
> In the US, the colonists are the good guys and the British are presented as the bad guys. The British are the oppressors, fighting against American freedom. (My son understands this is a simplification. We've discussed "good guys" and "bad guys" in history and war many times.)
> 
> How does British elementary education present the colonists and the British?




Your elementary education would be roughly equivalent to our Primary schools. There, history consists of the Tudors and Stuarts, and the Ancient Egyptians. I have no idea why those particular topics were chosen - probably nice costumes for the one, and pointy buildings for the other.

At high school, the first couple of years were a bit scattered - I remember bits of Scottish history (notably Bannockburn), bits on the 2nd World War, and some stuff on Vikings. Oh, and some stuff on British history from Waterloo to the Great Exhibition (1815 to 1851).

After that, I did the O-Grade, as part of the last class to do that particular qualification (and, indeed, History and Geography were the last subjects to change over to the new Standard Grade). We did "Life in Scotland 1760 - 1820", which was mostly about farming, and the changes in farming due to new techniques. We did Russia in their reigns of Peter and Catherine the Great, which was thankfully much more interesting. And we did a lot on the First World War.

Finally, I did the so-called "Alternate" Higher (again, this was the last class before they moved to the "Revised" Higher, and again this was the last subject to change over - and no, I have no idea why). Here we did history from the Glorious Revolution to the French Revolution (strictly, it was supposed to be 1689 - 1789, but the course was stretched to cover two 'landmark' events). This last was _hugely_ European in emphasis - we did lots on Louis XIV, lots on the French philosophes, and so forth, but very very little on the American War of Independence.

It was only in that very last class that we touched on the Revolution, and by that point we wouldn't have talked about "good guys" and "bad guys". However, it was pretty clearly understood that Britain was in the wrong on that one.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 9, 2013)

I do seem to remember the Tolpuddle Martyrs coming up a lot.


----------



## darrell_uk (Oct 9, 2013)

I somehow doubt that they are covered much on the far side of the pond.


----------



## Jet Shield (Oct 9, 2013)

Morrus said:


> Yeah, it's definitely portrayed as "independence", and not "freedom".  That basic emotive language choice does show how easy it is to do, though.




That's not _entirely_ accurate. As evidence, two quotes from The Declaration of Independence:


> In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in  the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by  repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act  which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a *free* people.






> We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in  General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world  for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority  of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That  these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be *Free and  Independent* States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the  British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the  State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that  as *Free and Independent* States, they have full Power to levy War,  conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all  other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for  the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection  of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our  Fortunes and our sacred Honor.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 9, 2013)

Jet Shield said:


> That's not _entirely_ accurate. As evidence, two quotes from The Declaration of Independence:




We're talking about how it's generally portrayed in classrooms in the UK.  Obviously the document itself is going to use that type of language; most independence verbiage tends to.


----------



## Jet Shield (Oct 9, 2013)

Oh. Yeah, I knew that.


Note to self: Don't try to post while sick. Your brain doesn't work even half as well as you think it does.


----------



## DMZ2112 (Oct 9, 2013)

This is only tangentially related, but I grew up in close proximity to the location of the Battle of Paoli, which (local) Americans still remember as the Paoli Massacre 230-odd years on despite the fact that it was really just a rout -- records show that the British were no more brutal in that engagement than they were in any other.

Some of the police cruisers in Malvern, Pennsylvania, still sport "Remember Paoli!" bumper stickers, which has always seemed a bit dramatic to me.

But on the other side of things, the descendants of the British regiments that fought in the Battle of Paoli continued to wear red flashing on their headgear until the late 20th century -- flashing that was originally intended to infuriate the American soldiers who had sworn to avenge the "massacre."

History is neat.  And it doesn't have to be very old at all before people start rewriting it to suit their political needs.  It's amazing we remember anything accurately.  Maybe we don't.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Oct 9, 2013)

GSHamster said:


> After all, how much are American children taught about the Spanish-American War, or even the War of 1812?




When I was in school (some time ago, to be sure) we learned about the Spanish-American War and the War of 1812.  Both were given a period of more than a day to discuss as well, IIRC.  

Of course back then we were also constantly being bombarded with anti-Communist propaganda.  I don't mean the 60s here or anything, either.  1980s, ya'all.  Twas quite the different time ... or not.


----------



## Jet Shield (Oct 9, 2013)

My earliest memories of school involve practicing what to do in the event that the air-raid or nuclear attack sirens went off. I wonder who thought hiding under a little desk was going to help anything if a nuke is dropped on you.


----------



## MarkB (Oct 9, 2013)

Jet Shield said:


> My earliest memories of school involve practicing what to do in the event that the air-raid or nuclear attack sirens went off. I wonder who thought hiding under a little desk was going to help anything if a nuke is dropped on you.




To be fair, at distances of a few miles, the primary initial sources of damage from a nuclear explosion are the heat and blast waves, and if you're in a reasonably sturdy building, the major factor in determining how badly those affect you is whether you're standing up in front of a window that's about to be transformed into molten shrapnel, or crouching down in cover.

There's still the far-from-insignificant matter of lingering death from radiation poisoning, but if you're on the outskirts of town, duck-and-cover is not a valueless strategy - and is probably the only one you'd have in the time available.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Oct 9, 2013)

Jet Shield said:


> My earliest memories of school involve practicing what to do in the event that the air-raid or nuclear attack sirens went off. I wonder who thought hiding under a little desk was going to help anything if a nuke is dropped on you.




Well, it really would have helped.  See, it creates a false sense of calm which, in turn, creates control.


----------



## Scrivener of Doom (Oct 10, 2013)

DMZ2112 said:


> (snip) Some of the police cruisers in Malvern, Pennsylvania, still sport "Remember Paoli!" bumper stickers, which has always seemed a bit dramatic to me. (snip)




Living in the Philippines this combination of history and drama seems to be normal, even for more recent events.

For example, one of the national heroes whom many Pinoys consider to be a martyr for being killed by his political rival wasn't actually killed by that rival but there are three other possibilies in order of most likely to least likely:

1. His own party killed him in retaliation for the murders of other party members he orchestrated.
2. His wife's family killed him in retaliation for grabbing some of the family wealth (which was itself stolen by his wife's family).
3. He was a notorious philanderer and an angry, cuckolded husband got him.

1. is the most likely but the other two are reasonable possibilities. Anyway, this traitor (oh yeah, I forget to mention that, like his father and son, he committed treason - another fact that is often omitted) is remembered every Heroes' Day, he's on t-shirts and on the money etc.... It's just drama.



> (snip)History is neat.  And it doesn't have to be very old at all before  people start rewriting it to suit their political needs.  It's amazing  we remember anything accurately.  Maybe we don't.(snip)




Yep. That's exactly what we have here.


----------

