NationStates Jolt Archive

Since we had the 1812 War, I wanted to cover this one, which to me is the first major US "intervention".

I find no fault with the interpretation here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish-American_War

But, as it states that people really were rebelling against Spain (a classic European power), and Spain was committing real atrocities, and the US press beat the drums with that message, I was wondering how Europeans thought (or were taught) about that war (if told about it at all).

Seems to me like US intervention abroad based on news stories isn't anything new.

Since we had the 1812 War, I wanted to cover this one, which to me is the first major US "intervention".

I find no fault with the interpretation here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish-American_War

But, as it states that people really were rebelling against Spain (a classic European power), and Spain was committing real atrocities, and the US press beat the drums with that message, I was wondering how Europeans thought (or were taught) about that war (if told about it at all).

Seems to me like US intervention abroad based on news stories isn't anything new.

Not taught at all - actually, we get almost no american history except for the 2 world wars.

America dipping its toe very late into the old colonialism paradigm is all I know about it without looking it up. Oh, and was this the one that Kipling wrote the White Man's Burden for?

Other than that, I got nothing. Not sure if the average briton knows much about it, to be honest.

Not taught at all - actually, we get almost no american history except for the 2 world wars.

America dipping its toe very late into the old colonialism paradigm is all I know about it without looking it up. Oh, and was this the one that Kipling wrote the White Man's Burden for?

Other than that, I got nothing. Not sure if the average briton knows much about it, to be honest.

So you're saying that the average Briton is unfamiliar with when Americans became enamoured with foreign intervention?

Didnt get much on it, basically our history teacher said something along the lines of:
We thought they blew up this ship thing we had, so we went and kicked their asses out of most of their colonies, resulting in a restructuring of many European's views of the US.

So you're saying that the average Briton is unfamiliar with when Americans became enamoured with foreign intervention?

Yep. I know a _little_ about the US civil war, but that was a personal interest, outside of education.

I was at a posh school, took a GCSE, a higher, and an A-level in history - that's an awful lot more than most do, and at a well funded school. Zero american history in any of the government approved curricula!

Yep. I know a _little_ about the US civil war, but that was a personal interest, outside of education.

I was at a posh school, took a GCSE, a higher, and an A-level in history - that's an awful lot more than most do, and at a well funded school. Zero american history in any of the government approved curricula!

Well, it's not like most Americans know any real UK history.

They might know more about Princess Diana than any other royal figure in history.

Yep. I know a _little_ about the US civil war, but that was a personal interest, outside of education.

I was at a posh school, took a GCSE, a higher, and an A-level in history - that's an awful lot more than most do, and at a well funded school. Zero american history in any of the government approved curricula!

History classes in the US are amusing. It's completely american centric, if we weren't involved it's just not mentioned. I presumed it was just an American thing, but apparently Europeans don't learn about what shaped our world either.

There was a Spanish-American war? News to me.

There was a Spanish-American war? News to me.

Yeah turns out we beat the piss out of them.

Since we had the 1812 War, I wanted to cover this one, which to me is the first major US "intervention".

I find no fault with the interpretation here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish-American_War

But, as it states that people really were rebelling against Spain (a classic European power), and Spain was committing real atrocities, and the US press beat the drums with that message, I was wondering how Europeans thought (or were taught) about that war (if told about it at all).

Seems to me like US intervention abroad based on news stories isn't anything new.

I was taught about as much as I suspect that you were taught about Magnus Ladulås in Sweden, that is 0.

Since the history teacher has a limited time they have to select information, so they then choose parts of history that is relevant to pupils/students (for me that is history about Sweden) to important historical events such as french revolution, american liberation, first and second world war, russian revolution etc. The 1812 war between america and Spain is not that important.

US history is not taught in the UK except at university level.

The GCSE (exam at 16) deals primarily with WW1, WW2, 20th century European dictatorships (British Empire, Weimar Germany, Spain and Civil War, Italy, Nazi Germany, USSR), the Cold War, Vietnam, and so on.

The A-Level (exam at 18) covers the political and imperial history of 19th century Britain, along with more detailed treatments of the origins of European fascism and communism, and their evolution as they were applied. Attention is also given to various overseas colonial adventures - Abyssinia, the Russian Civil War and European intervention, etc etc. Done properly, the A-Level is a pretty extensive grounding in two centuries of world history, as it need not dwell on the internal politics of Europe.

The internal political evolution of the US during this time is however not addressed.

Yep. I know a _little_ about the US civil war, but that was a personal interest, outside of education.

I was at a posh school, took a GCSE, a higher, and an A-level in history - that's an awful lot more than most do, and at a well funded school. Zero american history in any of the government approved curricula!

I think it depends what school you were at. I did GCSE and A-level History too, studied America as part of post WW1 international relations, we did the Boom and Bust, cuban missile crisis, could have done Vietnam. It all depends, I guess. Certainly never studied the spanish american war though.

US history is not taught in the UK except at university level.

The GCSE (exam at 16) deals primarily with WW1, WW2, 20th century European dictatorships (British Empire, Weimar Germany, Spain and Civil War, Italy, Nazi Germany, USSR), the Cold War, Vietnam, and so on.

The A-Level (exam at 18) covers the political and imperial history of 19th century Britain, along with more detailed treatments of the origins of European fascism and communism, and their evolution as they were applied. Attention is also given to various overseas colonial adventures - Abyssinia, the Russian Civil War and European intervention, etc etc. Done properly, the A-Level is a pretty extensive grounding in two centuries of world history, as it need not dwell on the internal politics of Europe.

The internal political evolution of the US during this time is however not addressed.


Interesting. Then why do I hear non-US people complain about "the ignorance of US citizens" about history? It would seem that every locale focuses on history in its immediate area, to the relative exclusion of others.

Or is there enough hubris on both sides of the Atlantic to go around?

Always thought of it as a double edged sword to be honest.

Half of it was good intentions (stopping the horrible treatment by the Spanish Empire), half of it was the beginnings of attempted U.S Imperialism.

Agree with the need for intervention, but not the Roosvelt Corollary that spawned from it.

It's mainly studied from the European aspect as the death throes of the Spanish Empire.

Edit: TG gave an example of British second level history.
In Ireland we cover it a fair bit at second level, nothing too intense but mainly as a prelude to 20thC imperialism. Bare facts, tactics, politics. At University, I did a course on it for a few semesters. Interesting to say the least.

Yeah turns out we beat the piss out of them.

Who's we? The Spanish or the Amreicans?

Interesting. Then why do I hear non-US people complain about "the ignorance of US citizens" about history? It would seem that every locale focuses on history in its immediate area, to the relative exclusion of others.

Or is there enough hubris on both sides of the Atlantic to go around?
Education here is more than just studying the EU countries, the civil war in Siberia is a bit further afield, so are the effects of Empire on India, North Africa and the Far East, the Great Game played out in Central Asia, etc.

History education is not purely about geographic reach, of comparing the m^2 of one curriculum with another. To be practically useful, it must be about how many countries, how many cultures, systems and interfaces you cover. American history education fails utterly on this score, because it deals with something fairly homogenous. You can see the effects in the attitudes of US and EU peacekeeping forces - European school leavers having an instinctive grasp of what's out there, and American school leavers left lost and confused. This is basically because the European 'immediate area' contains a great deal of diversity, and the US area, though as large, contains little.

Expanding the history education in the UK to include North America would add only a few more countries to a great pile of them, while expanding history education in the US to cover what is covered in the UK, would mean a whole new approach.

Interpretation? What is the need for different interpretations? The United States was eager for war and the explosion of the Maine gave the excuse for a war of aggression. Had the excuse of "freeing" Cuba which was bullshit as we also took the Spanish pacific possessions as well. Like the Philippines who did not care to be a U.S. territory. So we repressed a rebellion there by horrific means. Nice that the U.S. can show itself to be a brutal oppressor like any other country.

Education here is more than just studying the EU countries, the civil war in Siberia is a bit further afield, so are the effects of Empire on India, North Africa and the Far East, the Great Game played out in Central Asia, etc.

History education is not purely about geographic reach, of comparing the m^2 of one curriculum with another. To be practically useful, it must be about how many countries, how many cultures, systems and interfaces you cover. American history education fails utterly on this score, because it deals with something fairly homogenous. You can see the effects in the attitudes of US and EU peacekeeping forces - European school leavers having an instinctive grasp of what's out there, and American school leavers left lost and confused. This is basically because the European 'immediate area' contains a great deal of diversity, and the US area, though as large, contains little.

Expanding the history education in the UK to include North America would add only a few more countries to a great pile of them, while expanding history education in the US to cover what is covered in the UK, would mean a whole new approach.


The standard in the US is to teach world history as well as US history - but most of the world history is Eurocentric.

We focus more on crap like the Thirty Years War, than on things like the sack of Baghdad in 1254. Most kids will learn the names of English kings, but not who Tamerlane was.

And, the AP history is pretty detailed here in high school.

Interpretation? What is the need for different interpretations? The United States was eager for war and the explosion of the Maine gave the excuse for a war of aggression. Had the excuse of "freeing" Cuba which was bullshit as we also took the Spanish pacific possessions as well. Like the Philippines who did not care to be a U.S. territory. So we repressed a rebellion there by horrific means. Nice that the U.S. can show itself to be a brutal oppressor like any other country.

Yep. That doesnt get too much coverage though.

I thought it quite good of Wiki to through in "One of the most effective ways to rouse emotion was to portray the victimization of women....."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish-American_War

Interesting. Then why do I hear non-US people complain about "the ignorance of US citizens" about history? It would seem that every locale focuses on history in its immediate area, to the relative exclusion of others.

Or is there enough hubris on both sides of the Atlantic to go around?

I imagine every country studies its own stuff - we did - and then goes further afield :) Lord, there are complaints (up here in Scotland, anyway) we study too much foreign history to the exclusion of our own, actually!

American History wasn't studied because, I think, it had a relatively minor impact on the world prior to the 20th C., when all the pigeons came home to roost.

I'm not knocking the US; I took a Modern Studies (recent history, political institutions and political thought) Higher and a Politics A level (more of same, but harder!), which were both justifiably crammed full of American studies. But there's only so much that of one subject that can be taught with limited resources, and American history was very localised until quite recently. We got a very reasonable overview of 2/3 of the 20th C. from an American perspective (though not in history class), but not much else.

I take it as the US attempted entry into the the great game then their quick abandonment of it when they found out they jut got a few swamp filled islands that the bigger European Powers couldn't be bothered about

The A-Level (exam at 18) covers the political and imperial history of 19th century Britain, along with more detailed treatments of the origins of European fascism and communism, and their evolution as they were applied. Attention is also given to various overseas colonial adventures - Abyssinia, the Russian Civil War and European intervention, etc etc. Done properly, the A-Level is a pretty extensive grounding in two centuries of world history, as it need not dwell on the internal politics of Europe..

Hmm. For my A-Level, I did six modules (five exams, one coursework). I did Ireland in the Age of Parnell (Irleand 1850-1895), the Conservative Party under Disraeli (1840 to 1880), the French Revolution (1789 to 1795), Elizabeth I (1557 to 1603), Rebellion and Revolt in Tudor England (1485 to 1603) and the government of Pitt the Younger (1784 to 1801). As you can see, the A-Level can offer more than merely two centuries of history.

It is my opinion that all history education from the age of five to the age of sixteen is rubbish, regardless of what nation you are in. In order to engage pupils, history teachers feel obliged to choose 'relevant' periods of history (i.e. modern history or national history). However, this leads to a much bigger problem. History undergraduates go to university only knowing about 20th Century history and (unsurprisingly) they tend to stick to studying to 20th Century history because they have already know something about it and thus have a better chance at getting good marks. They graduate and then go into history teaching, thus leaving us with a generation of history teachers who can only teach the 20th Century with a good degree of competence. And those teachers then select the subject they know best to teach and thus the whole messy, messy circle continues.

Anyway, the Spanish-American war. The Spanish as a classical European power had been in decline since the 1650s. To defeat Spain in the late 19th Century was no big accomplishment for a rising power like the USA, especially considering the considerable geographical advantages that the US enjoyed. It was a mere confirmation that the US was now ready to play with big boys.

The standard in the US is to teach world history as well as US history - but most of the world history is Eurocentric.

We focus more on crap like the Thirty Years War, than on things like the sack of Baghdad in 1254. Most kids will learn the names of English kings, but not who Tamerlane was.

And, the AP history is pretty detailed here in high school.

When I was in high school years ago they did teach US history obviously. We also learned about European history. A great deal of time was spent on the Roman empire. I also remembered a very detailed lesson on China. Africa was brushed over lightly. Also touched S American history as N American history was taught. I actually believe they covered it well other than very limited information on the middle east.

History classes in the US are amusing. It's completely american centric, if we weren't involved it's just not mentioned. I presumed it was just an American thing, but apparently Europeans don't learn about what shaped our world either.
Nah, I learned a little about the American Civil War, a fair deal about 1920's America and the New Deals, a little on the Cuban Missile crisis and the U2 incident (where the Soviets captured an American pilot etc) and quite a lot about Vietnam as well.

What I didn't learn that much about was British history (I did the US in the 20s and 30s rather than Britain) and most of my knowledge about the English Civil War comes from my own interest (although I did learn a little about it at school also).

You see.. I would've thought that american history would be a really short course..

It is my opinion that all history education from the age of five to the age of sixteen is rubbish, regardless of what nation you are in. In order to engage pupils, history teachers feel obliged to choose 'relevant' periods of history (i.e. modern history or national history).

Yeah? When were you at school, though, can I ask? 1985-98 here - I remember, from 5-16, covering the tudors and stuarts, the jacobites, ancient egypt, rome and greece, medieval france, the crusades, the reformation and counter-reformation... and likely a bunch of other stuff I've forgotten, all before going on to GCSEs etc.

Things gone downhill since then? <cue 'in _my_ day...'!>

Trilby63;11628242']You see.. I would've thought that american history would be a really short course..
You would think so, but they've been pretty busy, with some pretty major events.

European history is doubtless a much larger topic, but it's "boring" because it's not full of wars and genocide to the same extent as American history has been in the last 250 or so years.

You would think so, but they've been pretty busy, with some pretty major events.

European history is doubtless a much larger topic, but it's "boring" because it's not full of wars and genocide to the same extent as American history has been in the last 250 or so years.

It's not? Britain and France have been at war with each other at least ten times in the last 1000 years!

Interesting. Then why do I hear non-US people complain about "the ignorance of US citizens" about history? It would seem that every locale focuses on history in its immediate area, to the relative exclusion of others.

Or is there enough hubris on both sides of the Atlantic to go around?

*DING* #1 Answer!

Being Slovak-American, I've often dealt with Euros whom disparaged American education. "Most of you don't even know where (Manchester or Leipzig or whatever) IS!"

To which I always ask them to name the capital of California. 99% fail. :D

Trilby63;11628299']It's not? Britain and France have been at war with each other at least ten times in the last 1000 years!

Yeah, but... it's France! They only win when not led by a Frenchman or allied with the Americans or British! (Joan of Arc, Napoleon...)

We never learnt about it, or at least i haven't yet. Im taking GCSE history and we get WW1 and 2 which i suppose is European history and then a bit of US history (economic boom, depression.) I dont think we learn anything outside Europe and America. Pretty lame.

Since we had the 1812 War, I wanted to cover this one, which to me is the first major US "intervention".

I find no fault with the interpretation here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish-American_War

But, as it states that people really were rebelling against Spain (a classic European power), and Spain was committing real atrocities, and the US press beat the drums with that message, I was wondering how Europeans thought (or were taught) about that war (if told about it at all).

Seems to me like US intervention abroad based on news stories isn't anything new.

Umm, it's spanish and american war, not the war with mexico, nor the civil war.


But yeah, europeans didn't really take notice to the spanish american wars. But France was also at war with Spain, which sort of gave some support to the new nation. But the U.S. have been at war with Spain for a long time, in their colonies of Cuba, Puerto Rico and so on. But even France barely played a role.