(no subject)

[hathycol]

Oh, British educational system. The things you don't tell us.

I have been quietly informed - quite rightly - all my life that the entire Native American (is that the new PC term? Why are we being taught the term 'Indian' when that refers to someone from, well, India?) peoples were quite nice dudes, good to nature, and Anglo settlers were TEH EVIl and destroyed them.

Seems to be mostly true - I know about the encampments, I know they were good to nature, I know settlers brought over smallpox and hell, the common cold, and I knew that generally the firepower was better etc but I'm currently reading about Pontiac's Rebellion.

Oh my god, this is fascinating. No, seriously, it totally is. I've always been somewhat bored by American history - all seemed far too mentalistic, patriotic, generically racist (British history is no better, I fully admit, but I have a distaste) in many of the policies of earlier leaders and ends with "YAY WE WON AND NOW WE OWN THE WORLD." I have to point out that's the impression given by the media and the teachers I had in high school. (Oh, to hear my history teachers damning inditement of the US involvement in WW2.)

The frontier stuff, though? Building a new civilisation (not fighting for independence. I'm sorry, I actually don't care) is so interesting like you wouldn't believe.

Whichy leads me back to Pontiac's Rebellion. Holy crap, that was nasty for all concerned, wasn't it?

In conclusion, this is all very interesting. I am fascinated. Officially, you might say.

Unusual, as I dislike this period of history in general. Hmm.

(I also have a terrible craving to watch Pirates of the Caribbean and claim it's research into British Imperialism and then watch Firefly for that frontier feeling.)

Anyway. I have probably massively offended every American on my flist, but honestly, I've never been taught this stuff before and the media LIES. Tell me stuff! It's interesting! Honestly! Not trying to insult anyone!

Why, yes, I am preparing for a tutorial presentation less than 12 hours before it's in. Again.

Comments

[emerald-embers.livejournal.com]

*flails briefly*

Just so you know - you did mention smallpox and the common cold, but did you know our diseases caused more deaths than actual attacks led by us?

Oh, and Abraham Lincoln wasn't into supporting the slaves out of altruism. He didn't actually care that much. It's just that they were handy for helping to cripple the South.

[jennnlee.livejournal.com]

Yup. The Civil War (or the War of Northern Aggression if you're from the South like I am) wasn't going too well for the North, and the Emancipation Proclamation was basically issued to give the North something to rally around and recruit more troops. You know, like the Weapons of Mass Destruction. Oops, did I say that? ;-)

[emerald-embers.livejournal.com]

*slaps knee* That darned truth thing, it just slips out when you're not looking!

Hehe :). Shockingly, I wouldn't know any of this stuff without my dad, who while being racist, as least has the decency to hate everyone and everything equally. And argue his case without hitting things. He is a mine of interesting information and high cholesterol levels.

[hathy-col.livejournal.com]

*grins*

Oh, American politicians. You do not change.

Which saddens me, slightly. History can be so depressing. We actually don't ever learn from our mistakes, we just made them in slightly different ways...

[hathy-col.livejournal.com]

I did not, but I do now.

I knew about the Abraham Lincoln thing, because it came up in my reading a few weeks ago about rebellions against the Catholics in England that were really popular discontent. "The religious issue was used as a noble rallying point that actually had little to do with the real issues, similar to Linciln's use of the slave trade in the American Civil War..."

Heh.

[elisa0984.livejournal.com]

From one historian to another, completely in agreement.

Quite frankly we never get fact when learning history. Simply the most palatable glossing over effect that they can manage which they gradually peel a little bit off as you go up the ranks. And that's only if you have good teachers. My 8th grade American history curriculum, utter shit. My AP teacher, fantastic and my main history professor will get as much of the different angles as possible. The Native Americans (That term has been around for at least the last 10 years if not more. I think if you present anything to the public it must be "Native American" but we simply revert back to Indian. Maybe an acknowledgement of Columbus, I'm not sure. We also refer to them as the American Indians.) were a big chunk of American Military History.

More like, "OMG it's over! Fuck, Britian won't let us trade, France is being mean, we're totally screwed" than anything else when you really look at it. But we can't teach that can we? Admit that we weren't made of awesome from the beginning and maybe not toss our weight around the world? Not gonna happen.

I think the thing about British history is that you've had time to sort things out. We're still quite young and still have things to be settled out.

[hathy-col.livejournal.com]

Terry Pratchett summed up education very simply as "Lies To Children." That's really quite true in history, especially because now I'm getting the up to date historical research whereas my high school was about 50 years out of date and college was at least 20.

The revolution I haven't really studied yet, except for the vague bit I remember in high school and what I learn through the media. Also in politics A-Level, because we did a lot of the Constitution which was interesting because I like political theory.

The Native American thing, though, is entirely new to me and is fascinating.

[elisa0984.livejournal.com]

The revolution was simply a mess. If we hadn't had a couple of good ideas, foreign help, and a huge amount of luck we'd never have won.

[jennnlee.livejournal.com]

I have probably massively offended every American on my flist

Heh, not in the least. I actually find it really interesting to hear the different perspective.

I'm personally a huge fan of that period of history, and not just for the YAY WE WON reason. It's really well driven home in the musical 1776 that not everyone in the colonies had a problem with the way things were going. They were perfectly happy to consider themselves Englishmen living in America. I'm really interested in the dynamics that made those colonists become a new country. It was something that had never been done before. What a huge undertaking!

One of the novels I have simmering in my mind takes place during the Revolution, in Williamsburg. It was the capital of sorts of Virginia, which was one of the most powerful colonies. The Colonial government dissolved the House of Burgesses when they got too uppity, so they started meeting in private in a meeting room at a local tavern. I've always been fascinated with a common person's view of that kind of thing going on. Like a barmaid working there - serving drinks to these men who were basically plotting to overthrow the government. What would her perspective be?

In another life, I would have majored in history.

[hathy-col.livejournal.com]

It is interesting, I just...

It gets shoved down your throat a lot, in the media. You know, the perspective that the British (and okay, let's be honest, the English because the other nations sort of hate England quite a lot) are some sort of evil, simpering overlords who the colonials heroically threw out and then went along in their manly ways doing manly things while we sat on our arses and bewailed. Which is true to an extent, and I'm not and never will be a fan of the Hanovarian dynasty (why, yes, they still are in charge but well not but DRAINING TAX RESOURCES) it's quite demoralising.

Once again, though, history is written by the powerful winners.

The common people are always more interesting because they're such a mystery - that would be a really interesting novel.

Majoring in history is fun but also frying my brain.

[bohemia-thinker.livejournal.com]

They were called Indians because the first explorer's thought they'd found India, as I'm sure you know.

This causes confusion obviously cos of the Indians in India so I think native American is just a simpler way to descibe it. Nothing PC I don't think...

We're doing the colonisation period too, tres interesant.

[hathy-col.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I know why the name, I was just confused as to why an article written in 1997 still called them 'Indians'.

It is interesting, which is odd, because I thought it would be pants.

[elyim.livejournal.com]

I know absolutely nothing of American history. I know there were cowboys and indians. That's the extent of my knowledge.

But I don't really know that much British history, either. Prehistoric Britain I can do, Romans through to Norman Conquest my knowledge starts depleteing, and after 1066 all I've got is the Tudors.

[hathy-col.livejournal.com]

Cowboys and native Americans. At different time, from what I can tell.

I'm actually only really good at about 1066 for Britain, and Europe is only from about 700AD. Eep. I suck.

[dragonlady7.livejournal.com]

I've got a bit of perspective on this, despite not having majored in history-- I did AP Modern European History (the upper level exam for American high schools) and then went over to Britain and took my A-levels in British and European History (I got an A, no thanks to the asshole teachers who did nothing but flip out at me).
And we're sitting there, and Mr. Dunkerley (the one with the drooling problem) says (about the gold standard) how Winston Churchill said "We will not be crucified on a cross of gold!" And I burst out, like right in the middle of the classroom, "That was William Jennings Bryan!!!" And there was dead silence. "Um," the teacher said, "Winston Churchill said that."
"No," I insisted. "William Jennings Bryan. He was the youngest presidential candidate to date, running in Kansas in the 1880s, at the forefront of the Granger movement, and he said, 'You shall not crucify America's farmers upon a cross of gold!' Referring, of course, to how harmful the gold standard was to the agricultural sec..." *trails off* "Uh... Cowboys and Indians?"

I have resented Churchill terribly ever since.

In re: Indians and political correctness: There was a big Native American civil rights movement in the sixties, with hostages and the like, but I mean, it's kind of a big country... I was brought up hearing that it was more polite to call them "Native Americans" and that remains the default polite thing to say, but those who actually have dealings with real Indians on an everyday sort of basis mostly have resorted to Indians because, well, it's equally nonsensical but a lot shorter. The very politest thing is, of course, to refer to them by their own names, but given that there were over 500 nations and some of their languages are extinct, it's rather difficult. (Around here the biggest noise is the Senecas, who own a massive casino in Niagara Falls; they're easy to keep track of, but their name's also nice and phonetic. Also they've gone from being downtrodden to being stinking rich, what with the casino...)

I also had an ancestor in 1660s New England who was involved in King Philip's War, which was likewise absolutely awful. I frequently like to point out when people go off on the Pilgrims (also my people, I might mention) that hundreds of white folks got slaughtered in that war too and it was a near-run thing, so it really does bear scrutiny on both sides. Most interesting, I think, is the fact that the Pequots (of Pequot War fame) were called that (local dialect for "wolves") because the other indians of New England considered them savages. It's a fascinating and complex issue.

Fascinatingly enough, American children are never taught even the tiniest smidgeon of the English Civil War, which was huge in driving the settlement of the New World. I mean, *why* were the Pilgrims banished? Because twenty years later, their people killed the King of England. I mean Jesus. But I didn't know that until I was twenty-five and, might I mention, had gotten an A on my British History A-Levels.
(I mean, i'd had a clue, but only from the Monty Python song about Oliver Cromwell.)

History is taught too compartmentalized, is really the problem.

[hathy-col.livejournal.com]

I just keep on sitting here in tutorials going "One side ritually cannibalised the other and then they used smallpox and all in all it holds a horrified fascination for me."

American students are woefully, woefully ignorant of British and much of European history. Some guy behind me in a lecture once pondered, in all seriousness:

"How come Ireland never had a Reformation?"

Okay. That's actually quite an intelligent question if you've never looked at the topic in great depth before, but then he followed it up with this stunner "because, like, there's no Protestants in Ireland, right?"

I flailed.

Although Brits don't know anything about Europe other than WW1, WW2 and if they're lucky the Russian Revolution and the Cold War. The curriculum is naff like that.

(I also resent Churchill, but mostly because he takes a lot of glory that belongs to other people. Historically I dislike him.)

Also I try to keep up with the different names as much as possible, but t's impossible to remember everything in Pontiac's Rebellion when it's been less than 24 hours since I first learnt it happened.

[dragonlady7.livejournal.com]

There's a certain amount of "you have finite brainspace and shouldn't waste it on things you won't need" to it.

But there's also a "holy crap how could you not know this?" aspect.

And it's very hard to balance them.

It's well-documented that a lot of the history Americans learn in high school is actually blatantly untruthful, but, well, nobody cares, so there's that.

(That's pretty much why I resent Churchill too, really. I mean, whatever you may say about how obscure the Granger movement was, and it is, I admit that, come on. Obviously Churchill had read the speech. Because I looked it up, and Bryan's predates his.
Also, um, Gallipoli.
And, like, yeah, pretty much everything.)

Ah, we are all ignorant and will die in the dark. It is the human condition.