1066 and all that ....
 

I was reading Jambutty's post on the United States of GB thread, the one with the little history lesson, and it occured to me to ask how history (or, History) is being taught in English schools .... is it the real stuff with, as Cromwell so aptly put it, "warts and all" ... or is it some sanitized, politically correct, apologetic horse manure that offends no one and instructs no one?

Re: 1066 and all that ....
 

Eric.
Dusti maeun sumat like this.

Retlaw.

Re: 1066 and all that ....
 

Wouldn't surprise me if the Scots kids know more about Robert the Bruce, and Welsh kids about Lewelyn than English kids know about Bodicea or Hereward the Wake. :(

Would also be interesting to know how many English kids on a school trips have visited one of the great Cathedrals v the numbers who have visited a Mosque :D

Re: 1066 and all that ....
 

isnt that the phone number for insurance :D

Re: 1066 and all that ....
 

Daft Bat.

Retlaw

In hiding again.

:hidewall:

Re: 1066 and all that ....
 

British imperialism certainly hadn't been whitewashed from our great history, the last time I was taught it in the early eighties.

I don't really know how it's being taught today. I do know a young relative of mine was studying World War II last year, which involved lots of indepth study and research about our war dead.

I did have to study art history for five years. Three of which years it was taught to me by a particularly hard line feminist, whose main idea regarding the history of art was that all men were evil bar stewards. We had quite a lively debate lasting a few years, the two of us. In the end I came out of the battle with my victor's colours flying.

What I didn't like about the way we were taught history is that there are just so many gaps. One minute your learning about Stone Age man, then it jumps to the English Civil War, the term after that it's the pre-WW I Balkans.

I wanted chronology. Start at the begining and work nicely through to whenever history end, which in the early eighties was 1945.

I'm still pretty much in the dark when it comes to the Dark Ages.

:D

Re: 1066 and all that ....
 

nowt at all was taught about more modern history in my day, just the whitewashed guff that in my opinion, most will never relate to again after leaving.:rolleyes:

Re: 1066 and all that ....
 

I have a passion for history.
At the Accy High school in the late 60s, history was taught in its historical sequence, starting in the stone age(briefly) and ending 5 years later(in education time :D) just before Queen Victoria.
It was always British history but because of wars and the explorations and conquests which formed the empire, brief snippets of the history of other countries was added in to clarify the then situation.

It is an enormous subject and there is more of it to learn by now:rolleyes:
Historians tend to specialise in a particular section in time that interests them most, and teachers do the same.

The part that I had little taught at school is the part that I have taken trouble to discover myself - ancient history, and even pre-history

Re: 1066 and all that ....
 

i also love history, ancient egypt n such, also more modern stuff from boer war forwards, but not fer the life in me was ever interested in some geezer getting n arrow in his eye, n that sort of guff. i cannot fer the life in me see what good that did me in later life, never learnt about egypt at school thats fascinated me in later life, we did sod all from boer war forward, now i can see kids being more interested in that, as ya can relate more through relatives.

Re: 1066 and all that ....
 

What your forgetting Cashy , when we went to skoo in the 60s the boer war and WWI were only 50/60 yrs in the past , so using that logic schools today should be treating the 60s as an historical era, don't think I want to be thought of as part of history , not just yet :D :D

Re: 1066 and all that ....
 

1066 and all that.
The History Book To End All History Books by W.C Sellar and R.J Yeatman.
A must read.:D

Re: 1066 and all that ....
 

At least we teach our kids history geograhy etc here.
My kids have gone to schools in the US and geography
is not a subject taught

Re: 1066 and all that ....
 

You can say that again,When I rang Western Union the American guy although very polite did not know where Spain was.:confused::confused:

Re: 1066 and all that ....
 

Tyler enjoys history, they are doing the great fire of london atm and he loves it. I did history until i was 14 then dropped it but i can still remember when we were doing about the holocaust the text book had a picture of a big pile of murdered Jews and there were children there, i will never forget that picture.

Re: 1066 and all that ....
 

Going Back to my school days, when you reached the 4 year, you had to choose History or Geography, I didn't like Des Mulderek so I chose Geog:D, but I'm bit like cashy, I like Egyptology these days, and watch quite a lot of programs on it, on the Discovery Channel

Re: 1066 and all that ....
 

we didnt have to do history or geography, i did 2 languages instead

Re: 1066 and all that ....
 

This is one of the subjects where television wins hands down, there have been some wonderful history programmes with great presenters

Re: 1066 and all that ....
 

Thats how i remember History being taught too!

Was'nt there a Survey done recently which showed a lot of kids did'nt even know who Churchill or Hilter were? I know a lot of surveys are pretty pointless depending on the criteria used, and i cant recall where i read this.

Best Regards - Taggy

Re: 1066 and all that ....
 

yeah, they thought churchill was the 'oh yes' dog :rolleyes:

Re: 1066 and all that ....
 

Re: 1066 and all that ....
 

Similar to when Great Britain had an Empire marked of with 'possessions', shown in pink, (it could have been red at one time but our school had a very old map and I think the ink had faded), the Americans show their kids a map marked off in black with the places they have already gained a monopoly on oil producing countries and in grey, (gray for our colonial cousins), of countries pending.

http://planetsmilies.net/machine-smiley-7598.gif

Re: 1066 and all that ....
 

I did French at school ema, but not the French your thinking about:D

Re: 1066 and all that ....
 

in 84/5 at Rhyddings we were taught 1870 to present day, basically Franco Prussian war onwards. Now I have a superb memory for numbers and could remember all the dates but couldn't for the life of me remember what happened on them. :D

One of only 2 exams I've ever failed that one........

I like Egyptology as well, probably due to a visit to the mancester museum from Junior school where we saw a real Mummy!( no not that sort you lot).

Re: 1066 and all that ....
 

I remember reading a comment somewhere, just before the Iraq War began ... some stand up comic, I forget who, mentioned that only 17% of Americans could find Iraq on a map; but that wasn't a problem, 'cause the 17% were all Marines ....

Re: 1066 and all that ....
 

I wouldn't be too concerned about the Americans: if recent history shows anything, it shows that the only succesful US military campaign since Hiroshima was the defeat of Grenada.;) Maybe Andorans are shaking in their boots, but the rest of the world is safe.

Re: 1066 and all that ....
 

I'm particularly interested in how the history of the two world wars is taught .... I realize that it is hard not to glorify the conflicts when you were on the winning side in both bouts ... but how does this idea of "we were the good guys and we kicked ass" exist along side the idea, or the ideal, that war is wrong, bad, or maybe even evil.

Is history "events"; is it the story of "great men" (with the odd woman thrown in ... good Queen Bess comes to mind) or is it everyone's tale? How do we get the idea across that history is something we do, not something that happened to others in the past?

Thinking about history is a Shandean horse of mine .... I realized that in some way it is very important when I was trying to figure out why Stalin went to so much trouble and erased so many people, in order to change it.

Re: 1066 and all that ....
 

I wish my old history teacher came on here ... i used to enjoy history when he taught me ... thats why i chose to do history in the 4th and 5th year .... and i hated it cos didnt like the teacher.... But when you go to a meeting after leaving school 20 odd years ago and then bump into him .... and go oh mr ..... and he says call me ... you left school a long time ago!!!!

Re: 1066 and all that ....
 

Yep , have to agree , I suppose that would be why "Ike" had to take you by your hand and show you the way back into Europe in 44. :rolleyes: :p

Re: 1066 and all that ....
 

No doubt about it.. "we" would never have been able to defeat Germany via landing in France with anything like the forces needed without the yanks..but don't forget it was the Russians that took Berlin and really smashed the Nazis.

Re: 1066 and all that ....
 

I agree ... "Civilization" comes to mind ... and I do think that the BBC does it best.

Re: 1066 and all that ....
 

Horse manure ... it was the Canadian Army that showed the way in 1942; and we didn't need any help finding Juno Beach in '44 ... I often wonder with what kind of embarassed reticence English historians treat Dieppe.:mad:

Re: 1066 and all that ....
 

And may Mountbatten rot in the darkest corner of hell:mosher:

Re: 1066 and all that ....
 

True... the Canadians input is sometimes overlooked.. considering they were involved as allies right from the start in 1939.

Re: 1066 and all that ....
 

Yup ... but we are used to being ignored ... however, the Dutch remember what the Canadian Army did; and their continued gratitude is well received.

If the First World War had gone on into 1919, Lloyd George would probably have appointed Arthur Currie to command on the Western Front, with John Monash as his deputy. A Canadian and an Australian ... but the war ended (or was put on hold for twenty years) and Haig claimed the "victory". History deals with what happened, not with what could have happened ... but "could have happened" is always a fascinating speculation .... the tiny, seemingly unimportant events and acts which have such momentous consequences when the happen in certain volatile climates. Sarajevo comes to mind, and there are no doubt many others the thinking person can think of. For me, the "what ifs" make history more fascinating that other fiction.

Re: 1066 and all that ....
 

The Russians took Berlin because the politicians and leaders of the British and American forces were told to hold back. Otherwise the allied forces would have taken Berlin, and Stalin did'nt want that, he wanted revenge.

Retlaw.

Re: 1066 and all that ....
 

But when you consider what Hitler had in mind for Moscow, had he captured it, Stalin's attitude isn't surprising. It is one of the troubling things about "history", that, in the West even today, historians and the general public (or at least those who think about things other than Oprah and Jerry Springer) still seem to ignore the sacrifices of the Russian people in The Great Patriotic War. I think it's time I tried to find out how Russian historians treat the contributions of the Western Allies in the defeat of Hitler.

An aside: has anyone read Deighton's "SS-GB"?

Re: 1066 and all that ....
 

sounds interesting http://www.geocities.com/smcleish/rev1248.html
will have to check it out

Re: 1066 and all that ....
 

also not mentioned is the fact that Germany and Russia were Allied at the start of WW2.. if they had remained allies things could have turned out very nasty indeed...apart from the massive forces they could have combined.. there would have been the possibility of a German/Russian nuclear weapon delveloped before the USA.
Facts are that it was Hitler who declared war on Russia and the USA.. nutter!

Re: 1066 and all that ....
 

[quote=Eric;678568]But when you consider what Hitler had in mind for Moscow, had he captured it, Stalin's attitude isn't surprising. It is one of the troubling things about "history", that, in the West even today, historians and the general public (or at least those who think about things other than Oprah and Jerry Springer) still seem to ignore the sacrifices of the Russian people in The Great Patriotic War. I think it's time I tried to find out how Russian historians treat the contributions of the Western Allies in the defeat of Hitler.
----------
Especially if they mention the Britsh Sailors in the Arctic convoys, who lost their lives, and the R.A.F., escorts. The R.A.F., at times had to land on Russian soil to refuel for the return journey, I remember reading of the Russian distrust, even though they had risked their lives escorting the ships, they were under armed guards whilst in Russia. The Ruskies did give medals to British sailors, but are they mentioned in the official Russian histories.

Retlaw.

Re: 1066 and all that ....
 

[quote=Retlaw;678619]Don't know if the Russian historians mention these not inconsiderable contributions, but Alexander Werth does so at length in "Russia at War: 1941-45." And those of us who take the trouble to interest ourselves in these events know the value of "official" histories. I, for one, wouldn't wipe my ass on any of them.

The question comes to mind: what is important? Is it what actually happens? Or how what happens is recorded and presented? In Canada we remember the capture of Vimy Ridge as a pivotal moment in our history, an action in which we showed the whole world that Canadians, fighting as an independent force from an independent nation, had taken control of their own destiny, and could no longer be viewed as an appendage of Great Britain. But for most of the rest of the interested world, Vimy Ridge is merely a part of the failed Battle of Arras, even though, in itself, it can be viewed as the first uncluttered victory after 32 frustrating months of war. In this sense, can history ever be taught without biases?

Re: 1066 and all that ....
 

[quote=Eric;678627] Would imagine the Aussies and Kiwis think the same about Gallipoli , it gets to be part of the national psyche, simaraily with Iwo Jima and the Americans, and the defeat/retreat at Dunkirk with the Brits

Re: 1066 and all that ....
 

Don't get to glorified in your nations Canada/American... forlorn defeats or victories in the world wars.. they were world wars because this nation was pinicale to anything the USA, Canada..and all the more civilized world as was then known..without Britain the "west" would have been .. in time.. destroyed by the Nazis...you played your part and I myself am grateful.. but don't get carried away boys.. it was an "Allied" victory

Re: 1066 and all that ....
 

Don't think anyone is saying it wasn't a "joint effort" just saying that one or two events stick in a nations psyche have a unifying effect ...... think of the Blitz on London and how Queen at the time visited the East End to show she was 'one of them' .

But at the same time, the history of the first and second World Wars as taught/projected when I went to school 50s/60s was that Britain with help from the Dominians that faced the enemy , when in fact it should have Britain united with the Dominians faced the enemy .

realistically speaking ,apart from the ideas of 'kith and kin' there was no need for the Aussies/Kiwis/Canadians to enter what was 'only' a European conflict until the attack on Pearl Harbour and the Japanese sweep southwards ;)

Bit of a wander, But just something to think about ...... what would you think Britain/United Europes response would be if China in the near future decided it needed to expand southwards towards Australia/New Zealand to accomodate its increasing population ? Who do you think would be the first to help them out ?

Re: 1066 and all that ....
 

Just have to pull you up on that Roy..the USA .. the American administration if not the public..must have seen long before Pearl harbour.. that if the Nazis controled the whole of Europe then there would be no chance of an invasion from the west.. without a stronghold from which troops and supplies could be amassed for any D day invasion would not been impossible without Britain

The priority was to attack and destroy Germany in Europe...the war against the Japs had to take second row.. and it turned out to be the right decision.
The Japs had more victories in Britsh Asia.. such as Singapore.. than they had in the Pacific.. the Aussies and Kiwis were definatly under threat.. and fought valiantly.

Re: 1066 and all that ....
 

This seems reasonable ... but how much of it is hindsight ... particularly the "must have seen" bit. History gives us a viewpoint that was quite probably not available to those in power at the time. One can fume in frustration that British and French political military leaders did not act against Hitler in the 30s ... when he expanded the German Army to 35 divisions, when he moved into the Rhineland, when he started constructing U-Boats and the Luftwaffe, when the .... we can go on for a long time but I think I have made my point. Quite often, war aims develop after the fact .... maybe even after the war is over ... it is a way that history makes sense of the senseless.

Re: 1066 and all that ....
 

[quote=steeljack;678659]Indeed it does become part of who we are ... and this is one point about history and its teaching that is quite problematic. History is not some "thing" that is out there waiting for some enterprising historian to discover it. I remember watching "Das Boot" with some friends; and I was the only one cheering at the end of the movie ... maybe I hadn't had enough tokes to get myself into the "willing suspension of disbelief" bs, and I had difficulty explaining to my friends that they were confusing the bad guys with the good guys (could have been the dope) ... Come to think of it, I didn't have the same reaction to "Stalingrad" ... maybe I had lived too long in a world where the Soviet Union was portrayed as evil.:confused: