'The first people leaving Britain for America were the Puritans who were not escaping tyranny - they were the tyrannical ones and thought Britain was not strict enough on religion.
Yep, they were just fine with religious persecution, so long as they were the ones doing the persecuting (evidenced by the expulsion from the colonies of anybody who didn't share their exact beliefs).
@@welshgruff Yes, only boiling water for tea. I was trying to be kind to our American friends, they can’t seem to make tea in any eatery in Florida anyway.
The unspoken truth is that the revolution was engineered by powerful businessmen who saw the writing on the wall as the UK Parliament was moving inexorably towards outlawing slavery. Taxation without representation was just a useful slogan to rile up the populace.
^ This. Especially when you know that the founding fathers were mostly if not all British themselves and would have reasonably been able to tell that their demands for representation in Parliament would've been seen as favouritism had they been accepted; the 13 colonies had the same deal every other colony had in terms of local autonomy and had the exact same deal as most citizens of the home nations in terms of a right to vote (i.e. most people didn't have the right to vote - and thus no say in parliament - in the UK at the time either). The "No taxation without representation" soundbyte was exactly that, a pretense that played better to its populace than the *actual* reason - local wealthy elites wanting more money and power taking advantage of the current events of the time (Enlightenment philosophies and the Napoleonic War) to seize it. EDIT: Totally got the time-frame confused; the First Anglo-Marathi war was the one going on at the time, and the First Carib War had occurred a few years prior. The Napoleonic Wars didn't happen until later.
And let's not forget that The Bank of England got mightily p*ssed off with the Colonies printing their own money with 0% interest thereby stealing huge sums of money in money printing for the colonies. The Bank of England then put pressure on the King to do something about it. The King himself was a huge cash borrower from the Bank of England.
One of the reasons to tax the US colonists was the fact that the UK had spent rather a lot of time, blood and money on the French and Indian War... The lack of representation was no worse than that enjoyed by the _vast majority_ of citizens in Britain at the time. So it could be regarded as a hissy fit by a bunch of ingrates who didn't want to pay their fair share for colonial defence (albeit dressed up as a noble cause). Other opinions are available.
Fun facts... 1776: Tea had never been cheaper, the average taxpayer in England payed 26 shillings a year, the average taxpayer in NEW England payed... 1 shilling a year. When Ben Franklin turned up in Parliament in London and said "Americans are too poor to pay tax" he did so, DAYS after asking various members of Parliament to subscribe to his Get Rich Quick scheme for a privately owned 14th Colony, created by hiring mercenaries to slaughter pesky indiginous, and was wearing a 3 piece suit made of the finest Flemish Velvet that cost more than most peoples houses. And he wondered why Parliament LAUGHED at him...
@@aestheticdemon3802 I knew parliament turned him down, but not the additional information. The house he owned in London under a pseudonym to hide he was a property owner in Great Britain, 32, Craven Street is now a museum for Franklin.
This, of course, is ignoring the fact that the Americans themselves bore the brunt of those conflicts, including the French and Indian War, and had completely paid for self-government in blood at the hands of the French and their Native American allies. Add to that the mercantilist rules that prevented Americans from manufacturing or building their own industries, and the gross negligence and profiteering of royalist governors, and we had every reason to have a "hissy fit." Which, by the way, was more than enough to kick the arse of the British Empire all the way back to London. Just sayin'.
@@johnalden5821 1. Actually, the brunt of kicking the French, fell on Wolfe and his expedition up the St Laurence, a venture that involved more than 100 Royal navy vessels, and vast amounts of military supplies, including by way of an example, over 1 MILLION pre made paper musket cartridges. The Expedition that captured Montreal and Quebec, founded British Canada, and seriously damaged the French position in the New world in a conflict that is ACTUALLY known as "The Seven Years War". 2. You didn't "kick us back to London", the French did, after WE saved your ungrateful asses from the French, you made an alliance with them, because you were traitors. 3. In fact only about 1/3rd of you were traitors, another 1/3rd didn't care who won, as they knew that the same stuffed shirt landed New England gentry would still be in charge, and 1/3rd actively opposed the traitors. Further, after the French won the rebellion for the traitors, many of the non traitors LEFT the country and moved to... British Canada, which is part of why your attempts to invade that and murder its inhabitants and steal their property, in 1812, failed...
The taxes the 13 colonies were asked to pay, were owed to pay for the war against the French forces trying to take over the 13 colonies. Before the US independence only the rich paid tax and now only the rich don't pay tax. All men are born equal (some more equal than others it seems).
An interesting aspect of the “ talk” given by the official at Liberty Hall in Philadelphia,is that support for the revolution was far from universal,as most people still thought themselves “English” and were concerned about being isolated from support from the Motherland. I was surprised that this was emphasised as generally the Revolution is much touted as “Americans fight for freedom “!
That was of course the WHOLE point... The leaders of the rebellion were ALL wealthy land owners, one of the tactics they tried before open rebellion was a boycott on designer luxury goods, with high tax, designer glassware from Waterford, designer crockery from that nice Mr Wedgewood, designer furniture from that nice Mr. Chippendale, and silk and satin clothing from the Fashion Houses of London, Paris and Milan. One of the Wives of a senior member of "bin Washington's Al'Republica Network" wrote a letter that's still in the Library of Congress, to her friends to get them to support the boycott. The sentiment of the letter was basically... "surely it must be possible to get clothes of wool and cotton such as the common people wear, made here in the Americas" The Rebellion was NEVER about "Freedom" or "Democracy", it was about old Money New England Gentry not wanting to pay property taxes, and import duties on luxury goods.
@@PMexPAT Yes but history is always written by the winners, aren't they? Which is, by the way, the reason why French history books are so thin and full of pictures while the thick volumes of British history fill shelves around the world.
They were not bartering with the King. The King was really not "ruling". The British Prime Minister was. The British Parliament ran the country and set policies. But for some reason, many Americans talking about their history believe that it was the King they were fighting. Great Britain was already a constitutional monarchy at the time of the US War for Independence.
Dude, most Americans still think the royals rule our country, they know nothing about anything outside of America. Some of them think Europe and Africa are countries and couldn't point them out on a map.
All true, except that it is slightly more complicated. We didn't actually have a "Prime Minister", Walpole used the term and it was used about him, but it wasn't an official title. The first official time the name was used in a document was in 1878, by Disraeli
@@grabtharshammer Sorry, you are incorrect. The original title, “First Lord of the Treasury” is still the name used and even engraved on the letter plate of 10 Downing Street’s door.
Yes and no. The King's government would not have continued to govern without the backing of the King. He named the chief ministers and they still worked at his pleasure. The King was far more involved in overseeing his government than would be true even 50 years later, much less today. Moreover, the UK does not have a single written constitutional document -- rather, a series of documents, court rulings, etc., that cumulatively make up what they call a constitution. That has evolved over the centuries, and what would have been the "constitution" at that time would have been very different from what it would be considered today.
If people weren't taught it in School it doesn't mean we don't know anything about it, we know all about it, The UK knows a lot more about America than a lot of Americans do.
@@eadweard. You obviously attended a terrible school. 🤣🤣A good school should teach you how and where to find information and then give you the tools to critically evaluate it.
We were busy fighting the French at the time and we consider that more important, its our favourite hobby fighting the French 😂 so we expect a thanks for getting you New Orleons 😅
Still does seem a favourite hobby, believe we took a short break from it in 1939 and after the fall of Cameron it became mandatory, until the Ukraine conflict, when we started remembering they were our favourite good looking cousins we had a crush on. As we can't say that through embarrassments, we pull their hair instead (French not US as US cousins all have guns and tugging hair no good against 9mm parabellum)
Kinda funny, to some of us the founding fathers, the pilgrims etc. left Europe because they were no longer allowed or able to prosecute and persecute others because of religious freedoms here in Europe. They left to a new land, where they could persecute those who believed otherwise. Not because they were themselves persecuted.. They just did an Amber Heard on it when they retold the story.
BOOOOOOOM! Well said. The US preach freedom and have less freedom form the continent that they left; because the people that left were religious fanatics that wanted the power to control. IRONY! Every President has to swear on a bible.. give me a break?!!!!! Poor Obama..Do you have a US passport , are you Muslim.. fucked up!
This is ignorant historical revisionism. The Anglicans of the 17th Century would not have known religious freedom if it bit them in the ass. They did routinely persecute not just other protestants (including Scottish Calvinists) but also Catholics, Jewish people and anyone else they suspected of being a threat to their established religion. The settlers of Massachusetts had no power to persecute anyone in the UK, and they were trying to found their own congregations in the fashion they believed in. Modern-day concepts of freedom of religion were not born or implemented until at least 100 years later, as part of the 18th Century Enlightenment.
@@johnalden5821 ..and yet they created religious communities that continued to exact the same strict controls and punishments they were claiming to be -running- sailing from, hardly seems kosher. Was like a breeding ground for proto-cults ffs. How many new branches of 'the faith' did they give us!? There were hundreds of different religious communities scattered across Europe at the time, trying out different forms of this and that, they were however limited to the laws of their land in terms of punishment and judgement, where specific contracts weren't pertinent (landownership and the Church, you know there were some tired scribes). They didn't want religious freedom, they wanted *their* version of religious freedom, that is to say they wanted their particular brand of their faith to be the one which laws were made after, which others followed in public (and which they were themselves claiming to be an afront, when the shoe was on the other foot). They had plenty of opportunity to live and practice their faith, just not to punish the heretics that believed otherwise. In whatever new world they created, they could, would and by accounts, did. There wasn't "practice as you want, how you want and express it however you want" in the modern sense but they weren't expecting an Inquisition either.. [I... really mustn't make that joke]. As indeed did many after them. Power struggles and the resulting pogroms were common pretty much anywhere there was a cross to be seen. And anywhere there was not, frankly.. I'll stick with that as being nearer the likely truth than either claims of a perfectly free Europe; with Synagogues and Mosques scattered between the Churches and everybody sharing the love both within and without (?) the faith, nor that of the Pilgrim Fathers.
@@johnalden5821 I agree completely. The Test Acts of the 1670s effectively prevented anyone who was not prepared to swear an oath denying transubstantiation and to take Communion in an Anglican church from holding any civil or military office, from sitting in Parliament or from going to university. They were not fully repealed until the 19th Century.
A lovely old American friend of mine who fought and was wounded in the Korean War was completely unaware that thousands of servicemen from the British Commonwealth also fought there too.
Had two uncles who were in Korea..one in the 41st (independent) Royal Marines and the other in the Royal Engineers it uses to be told at the time amongst the family that one built bridge's the other would follow and blow them up
Yer as he says it's only taught extremely minimally in the UK. In all of UK history from the UK's point of view it was not a significant event, both at the time and afterwards. The 13 colonies and the later wider USA was not particularly important or profitable to the British Empire compared to other British colonies. It was its islands in the Caribbean that were by far the most profitable and important to the British Empire at the time due to the then extremely valuable (white gold) sugar they provided. At the time of the American War of Independence, Britain was also engaged in a major international colonial war with France and Spain, who were both also heavily aiding the 13 colonies. Due to Britain's resources being divided and stretched between both simultaneous conflicts, Britain was in serious danger of losing its international colonial war with France and Spain and, crucially, losing too many of its absolutely vital and profitable Caribean islands. Britain had to make a choice. Either concentrate on securing the mostly insignificant and unprofitable 13 colonies, which didn't pose any current or future international threat to Britain or the rest of its empire. Or concentrate on winning against the major current and future international threat to its empire of France and Spain and secure its extremely significant and profitable Caribbean Islands. The choice was obvious. It was the right choice. Britain went on to win that international war against France and Spain and managed to secure and maintain its position in the Caribbean, despite Spain successfully managing to increase and strengthen their position in the Caribbean. That victory allowed Britain over time to further increase its empire all over the world and establish itself as a new dominant super wealthy superpower above France and Spain, for only the minor loss of what were then insignificant and unprofitable 13 American colonies.
I did years of History at school and a History degree at University and we didn't do any American history at all ..... and the American Revolution and Independance would just be a footnote. What you have to remember is that we had 50 other colonies we were looking after and were constantly at war around the world and in Europe .....
When were you in school? Nowadays I think it's very common to focus on the Cold War period and the American Civil Rights Movement, and we also cover some American stuff when we talk about the Slave Trade.
@@bookswithike3256 at school in the 1960s, University in the 1970s. I guess the Civil Rights movement and Cold War was going on whilst I was at school so I don't really count that as History, more Current Events !
I think the British attitude on this is pretty ridiculous. How many of those 50 other colonies became the largest economy and biggest superpower in world history? How many of those other colonies became the UK's premier ally in World War 2 and the Cold War? Basically, the history is that George III and his government made the biggest mistake and showed the greatest incompetence of any Empire in world history (at least until the Spanish lost the rest of the Americas). So, yeah, you guys don't like to talk about it. We understand. The glory that was Jamaica was all worth it.
USA History was a super short chapter ..maybe 2 weeks? Romans Vikings/Scandi history UK history French Revolution Russian Revolution UK/Belgium/French/German/Italian Imperialism in Africa & Asia The 1st. & 2nd World Wars took a lot more time to go through and the Socio/Political consequences for the world, as a whole hello from Denmark 🌸
Mosopotamia, Egypt, Greeks, Roman, ottoman empire, lower middle ege, dark century, rinascimet, discover of America continet, colonialis, the revolution periods, napoleon, new colonialis etc etc etc.
We had loads to get through at school in the UK . Roman, Anglosaxon, Norman, Medieval, Tudors, Stuarts, Georgian, Victorian and the more modern stuff. The American Revolution was reduced to a single lesson that had to cram in the settling of America, the trade wars between Britain, France, Spain and Portugal, the growth of French military power in Europe and the march towards the Napoleonic Wars.
@@LoneWolf-rc4go Some of that is UK wide, some isn't. In Scotland, we learn about our own kings and queens, not the Tudors (other than when they affected Scotland). We learn about the medieval times from a completely different point of view. The 100 years war, for instance, is (or was anyway) taught from the point of view that the French were our allies and the English were the aggressors.
@@GOGS-zg7rd That's a good point. I doubt that there would have been much about Roman and Anglo Saxon history. I suppose English and Scottish history only really starts to align after the Tudor period.
He is talking about world history, not just English history. In my school days, we started with 6700 BC, since it was the first confirmed permanently inhabited place here in Vučedol. Greater advantage was given to world history and just understanding the context, causes and consequences than memorizing historical dates
We learn back even before the Romans, though it's less history than archaeology at that point as Britain was pre-literate. I remember history trips to local stone circles in secondary school in the 90s.
@@gwynwilliams4222 just because it wasn’t called England it doesn’t mean it isn’t our history. The place I live is a Roman name and there is a Roman fort ruin within walking distance of me.
I always tell Americans, for you the American Revolution was the defining point in your country's history. For the British? It was just Tuesday. ~ Bison
He puts it very well. Here in NZ the American Revolution is barely if at all touched on unless at a higher level of education where it gets incorporated into the war between Britain, France and Spain, in which the revolution in the American colonies was something of a sideshow, much more importance being given to the retention of the sugar islands of the Caribbean, America at that time not being of great economic value as a colony. The fact that we, along with dozens of other colonies became independent from Britain is only of general interest. I am pretty confident that most Kiwis would be hard pressed to name the year of our independence, let alone the date as it came about through a gradual, evolutionary process. We tend to focus on our founding document, the Treaty of Waitangi signed between Britain and Maori in the mid 19th century as being our beginning.
The wonderfully clarifying thing about gaining your independence is that, once you have kicked the Empire's ass, you definitely know that you have it. Otherwise, you have to keep asking the pommies how much you actually have.
From dodgy school memory 1907? But I personally remember it was in the mid 70s when England simultaneously abandoned us for the EEC and cut the apron strings. It is both sad and funny to me that they are now willing to welcome us back, and I'm still angry enough to remember the blood spilt and lost on their behalf in the wars.
@@andrewgood4230 Andrew, you are right we did drop so much of the commonwealth for our new 'friends' in the " Common Market" ... a huge mistake for which Britain is still paying. But as another commented there were millions who didn't want to do it. As for the sacrifice your country and every other country in the Empire made, this will forever be remembered and appreciated by those who know here in the UK.
@@andrewgood4230 One last thing, many thousands of troops from Britain fought against the Japanese in Asia, helping to protect both NZ and Australia from a great evil. Please don't take offence as none is intended.
We were taught about the American Revolution in History when I was at school. We were also taught the Russian Revolution, the French Revolution, The Agrarian Revolution and the Industrial Revolution.
@@jemmajames6719 Different educational districts teach different things to different ages. Oft times there is a complete switch, ie what one district learns between 12-14, another will do at GCSE, yet another at A Level, and another, not at all. It's not a one sized fits all syllabus.
@@threestepssideways1202 Excellent use the oft in there, not seen nearly enough and it's needed these days with often getting used incorrectly far too often.
@@threestepssideways1202 In Scotland we were taught a lot of English History (The Norman Conquest, for example) but were taught no Scottish History at all. Thankfully things have changed since the 1970s.
Nope, actually King George is more remembered here for going mad, but still trying to rule. The America thing is really a small footnote. They made a film, it's called " The madness of King George" not "How King George lost the American Colonies". His madness is important and current because it could be hereditary and show up in another British King or Queen.
He's remembered for being mad, having a poor relationship with his son and heir, at the time of his death he was the longest reigning British monarch (his granddaughter, Queen Victoria went on to reign for longer) and had the longest reign of a male monarch to this day. He's remembered for having loads of children but those children not producing legitimate children apart from his eldest son who had a daughter, Charlotte, who was beloved. She married a chap called Leopold (who went on to become King of the Belgians. Charlotte and Leopold were soon expecting a baby shortly after marrying, sadly both Charlotte and the baby died during childbirth. Despite having a number of adult children and numerous illegitimate grandchildren, George had no legitimate grandchildren so there was a scramble amongst his remaining children to marry and produce heirs, by this time his sons were in their 40s and 50s. Ultimately it was his 4th son, Edward Duke of Kent, who produced a legitimate heir, Alexandria Victoria who went on to rule as Queen Victoria. Interestingly, Edward married a widowed mother of two, a German named Princess Victoria. She was the sister of Leopold, who had married Edward's niece, Charlotte, the death of whom created the scramble to get married. Leopold and Victoria had a number of siblings, their brother Ernst had two children, the younger of whom was called Albert. Albert went on to famously marry his cousin, Queen Victoria.
I had family that arrived in the 1680s New york area by the time of the revolution they were a successful farming family having had lands given for this reason by the crown. Come the revolution they expressed as did many the desire to stay loyal to the crown, they were burned out and attacked, forcing their journey to upper Canada. That's how I tend to view the American War of Independence.
In Britain at the time the American revolution was a 2nd rate battle. When the country was at war with France, Spain and the Netherlands at the same time America was a minor annoyance.
It’s been a while since I was at school but I remember history lessons spending time on: Ancient Egypt, Romans, Saxons, Vikings, Norman invasion and associated battles, Tudors, Stuarts, English Civil War, Georgian era, French revolution, Victorian era, WW1 and WW2.
The taxation was to pay for your defense during the 7 years war. The French Revolution was caused by the economic depression brought on by the help given to the Americans during the Revolutionary War which was never recompensed. That's why the Brits aren't overly upset about loosing America when it ended up destroying the French And we were already making vastly more out of India and elsewhere whilst America just cost us money.
@@JJ-of1irBollocks.. best thing the yanks ever did.. in point of fact the only good things they ever did..I’m delighted we don’t have any links to them..🙄🇬🇧
@@Ionabrodie69 No.. they were religious nutcases that were not wanted in the UK/Europe.. that fled because they wanted to control in a n extreme religious 'puritan' fashion.. which explains the mess of your country to date!!!! The amount of blind, non educated spew that US people prescribe to is cringey to the rest of the world. Good luck you muppets. Stay in your ignorance!
Do they no study other countries? In italy, even though we have Sooo much, we start with mespotanya/egypt/Persia for the first 5 years and then move on to other topics.
Check your history. The "Pilgrim Fathers" refers to the Plymouth Colony, which never in its history convicted anyone of witchcraft. Massachusetts Bay, yes -- but they were not the group known as the Pilgrims. In England, itself, of course, an estimated 500 people were executed for witchcraft -- probably 90 percent of them women. The tricky thing about history, you see, is that is consists of details. You can look them up on something called the Internet.
Well, the French paid for the American Revolutionaries, really just to piss off the English. This conversation reminds me of the Mitchell and Webb sketch about our nukes, which makes me laugh just thinking about it :)
One thing American's don't seem to understand about the revolutionary war is that even back then the king's powers were limited by the constitution. The crown had had no direct ability to levy taxes since the English civil war. Most of the colonists issues were with Parliament not the crown in fact many of the founding fathers considered themselves loyal subjects. It was only the King's arrogant rejection of their appeals for justice which led to outright rebellion. If the King hadn't been plagued with debilitating physical and mental illness he may well have backed the colonists against the greedy corrupt politicians in Westminster leading to an even stronger future Empire with a less centralized Federal style government incorporating more than a fifth of the world's people. Now imagine where we would be now under that system?
I think because the UK has such a long history anything we were taught about US history was quite brief. I can remember learning about the Romans, the Middle Ages, the wars of the roses, the wars with France etc and then going on to learn about the British Empire, Industrial Revolution, French Revolution and Napoleon. By the time we were coming up to school leaving exams we learned 20th century European history and about the world wars. The only thing I remember learning about US history was the Boston Tea Party and the Civil War. I also once did a history project on the Alamo, mostly because I liked the movie.
little annie. I spent six months on a course at a US Base in Florida 1973. In their library I picked up a book about the Alamo. Very interesting. It named all the US participants and where they came from, mostly I recall from the UK. Love to find that book again.
@@albertplumb7206 Wow, that is really interesting and just about everybody in the UK have heard of the Alamo .... even if it's just the joke from "American Werewolf in London";-)
@@xanx1234 I am afraid the mention of "American Werewolf in London" went over my head! (I have never seen it). I was a 13 year old schoolboy when the film Alamo came out so that is my reference point.
What the US fails to undertand is that Britain only gave the US revolt its partial attention as Britain at the time had a lot going on all round the world; multiple wars in europe & Middle east, wars/colonisation of the Indian subcontinent(which britain viewed as a lot more valuable than the US), multiple wars & colonisations in Africa, wars & colonisations in south east asia, the colonisation of all of Oceania(australia, new zealand, papua new guinea & multiple pacific islands inc Hawaii). In addition to which its also strongly believed that powerful business men in Britain were pushing the british government to let the US have its independence, its well known that at the time that British govt was looking at banning slavery in all colonies and that powerful business men wanted the highly lucrative slave trade to continue in the americas which would require the US's independence from Britain.
The majority of those fighting on the British side were Belgian and German mercenaries. There were probably more British military trained people (deserters and retired) fighting on the colonial side.
I don't remember being taught anything about America in history classes. In geography, we learned about North American mountain ranges though, that's all. The first time I learned about the War of Independence was aged 16 in Minnesota on the way to a 4th July party! I asked "so who were you guys getting independence from?" and there followed a few seconds of silence lol.
This video explains a lot about the history and geography taught in American high schools, as you see videos on youtube where college students don't know the difference between a country and a continent, they think Europe is a country, and have no Idea where certain countries or continents are in the world map, which I think is shocking.
We were taught the Russian and French Revolution etc in school . Nothing about America . However learning doesn’t end when you leave school , and like a lot of people we’ve read all about American history and know a fair bit . 🏴
The American couple refer to Boadicea, the 100 years war, the Tudors being a "footnote in American history". All these things happened centuries before America as a country, or even a group of colonies even existed
Something I find hysterical is when Americans tell us Brits that we should be ashamed of our colonial past. I like to point out to them that us Brits are the descendants of people that DIDN'T colonise anyone. Our ancestors stayed at home. Americans, however, are the offspring of those that went to America and colonised it.
Don't remember being taught about the American Revolution at school. As it had little impact on the world at the time. As we tend to teach history by themes over time. I don't think that the American Revolution would be included, except possibly for bankrupting France and triggering the French Revolution. I think that trade between the US and UK got back to normal pretty quickly, with the bonus that the US now had to pay for it's own defence.
It is mystifying to me how the birth of one of the largest countries in the world, with perhaps the most impact on world history over the past 200 years, can be thought of as having "little impact." When viewed from current times, which is when the education we're discussing should be occurring, it is clearly a huge omission. It is like not teaching the history of India or China. It is purely British chauvinism not to teach American history, especially since it is integrally related to British history. I get it, King George III dropped the ball. It's' embarrassing. You guys don't like to talk about it. But it reflects poorly on your educational system, nonetheless.
@@johnalden5821 I said "at the time". Later the US would only appear in our history lessons as footnote in the Napoleonic Wars and a reason for the Atlantic Slave Trade. The US would only appear as a major player if we studied 20th Century history as an option. Before that the US had very little impact on the European History we were taught. Remember how long the US had a policy of "isolationism". Apart from wars with the Spanish. We have about 2,000 years of history to keep us busy enough.
@@corringhamdepot4434 So this British version of history is that the United States popped onto the scene in the 20th Century and no reason to explore how the most powerful country in the world developed up to that point? That is not history. It is literally failing to teach history. I would submit to you that the origins of the United States (and many other countries) is more important to the UK than whether the Count of Blois or the Duke of Anjou sat under a now moldy crown.
@@johnalden5821 So give me a list of historical events where the US impacted Europe before 1900. Apart from selling us cotton and tobacco, buying slaves, bankrupting France and taking land from Spain. The US barely had a navy or army of any size before the 20th century. A couple failed attempts to invade Canada are not of much interest.
G'day Guys! Here in Australia during the first 4 years of high school we had a general coverage of most European (especially British) from 1066 forwards...So we did the Hundred Years wars, Louis XIV etc in France 7 Years war Napoleonic wars as well as the War of Independence/1812 War and through the colonising periods etc up to WWII so no "in depth" study of any particular time/event as that would be covered in the final 2 years of high school when we chose either "Ancient History" or Modern History (from the French Revolution until the present day) Cheers!
I was senior student in 1965 ( I know a long time ago) I took history from year 8 to year 12. We learned no American history at all - except for civil war. The war of Independence was only mentioned as a footnote. I still have my text books and did a quick check to make sure i hadn't forgotten what we learned at the time.
We did not learn anything about the third English civil war when I was at school, but the UK has a lot of history, as does USA, Canada, Europe etc. Hi from the English midlands.
"The Americans consider the American Revolution a 'win' against Britain, we consider it a lucky ffrikin' escape!" (Or words to that effect!) Hat Tip to Al Murray/the Pub Landlord...... 😊
The thing to remember is it was a small event for us. The question is why did the largest super power in the world let the US go. It's because more important things were happening like the fight against Napoleon. The reality is we put comparatively little effort into keeping the US. I understand why it is taught the way it is in the US and it's importance to you. But for us it doesn't really pass the 'so what test". Sorry but it's true.
We used to be taught all about America from Christopher Columbus, early colonies, the Pilgrim Fathers, 7 Years War, American Revolution, War of 1812, slavery, Civil War, in the 1970s and before for GCE O Level and A Level exams. After the National Curriculum introduction in the mid 1980s it seems to have severly declined in favour of maths and science subjects. For all the accusations of tyranny there was no actual actions like in Spanish or French colonies. The taxes were to repay the costs of keeping you from being ruled by France during the 7 Years War, which if Britain had lost you really would have known what tyranny was, look at any French colony for how that turns out like Haiti amongst many more. The internal politics of the colony were much more complex than is normally discussed and the interesting bits that are much more awkward to the tyranny story are now hidden but easily found when you go looking.
The Great Britain vs Britain vs UK is great fun to talk about! I live in Shetland which is a group of remote islands in Scotland (we're the ones in the box or just cut off completely because we're so north). So Shetland is part of Scotland so is part of the UK. Shetland is also British, as that term refers to England, Wales and Scotland in their entirety (basically just not NI). Shetland isn't part of Great Britain however as we are a separate island and Great Britain refers to the land mass.
Essentially we're taught that we tightened the nut too far due to other factors taking precedence, so you rebelled. We were fighting in Europe and elsewhere so couldn't respond sufficiently with troops and ships to stop you getting independence. Especially when you were getting help from the foreign powers we were already fighting. Its taught that at the end of the war, most of the loyalists and allied tribes moved to Canada. You tried invading Canada later on but were knocked back and we (mostly Canada) won the war of 1812. If anyone had a gripe I assume it would be the Canadians, but that doesn't seem to be their attitude. You'd probably be better seeing how Canada teaches the US war of Independence and 1812.
From what I keep hearing from Canadians, it seems when teaching the War of 1812, they treat it as part of their own national history to take pride in, despite them still being British at the time and not yet their own independent country. For example, they will claim Canada burned down the White House all by itself, despite that being a naval raid using the British Navy to deliver troops up the Potomac river into Washington DC. In the USA the war isn't taught as "USA fighting troops of a nation called Canada". It's taught as "USA fighting Britain, in the part of the British empire that will later become the nation of Canada." The US holds no ill will toward Canada for burning down the White House because it teaches it as something the British Empire chose to retaliate with using the Empire's troops on Canadian territory, not as a decision made by a country called Canada, which didn't exist yet.
Note that the UK was not actually fighting any European rivals in 1775 when we began our war of independence. Yes, we managed to obtain European help, but not until several years after the war began. I believe most people would say that was the product of good diplomacy on our part. Most of your comment seems to be confusing the Revolution with the War of 1812, when, yes, the UK was in the midst of the Napoleonic Wars. You are incorrect about the outcome of the War of 1812. Nobody won it. It was a draw. The Treaty of Ghent returned the parties to status quo antebellum. No territory changed hands, no party conceded anything. Everyone just agreed to stop fighting. That does not constitute a victory for anyone. Canada survived, the U.S. survived, the UK survived. The entire episode had no result historically.
@@johnalden5821 I said this is what we are taught. (In primary and secondary school.) We're taught that the East India company was an extension of the rich and powerful and created so much trouble and got so big it was taken over by the government. We're taught that throughout this period of "exploration" that we were either at war, or in an uneasy peace. Usually with France and Spain and whatever local populace we aided, protected, then took over in the Indies. That we were spread too thin and it was after this period that the proper British Empire started. There's really only 4 US periods covered and briefly at that: The initial landings in Roanoke/Raleigh. Essentially a ghost story and then a quick overview of starving in a land of plenty. The seven years war against France and their native allies. A quick overview about working with the settlers and natives to defeat the French and take over new France. The 1775 war of independence. Same thing - an overview of who the main players were and what happened. The war of 1812. Usually an afternote that it didn't end when the US became a country. We spent longer on the Celts, Romans, Egyptians, Vikings and Normans when I was young. We did some stuff on the commonwealth, usually around the commonwealth games. Most schools cover the war of the Tudors, Henry the VIII and Elizabeth the first - then it usually goes to Cromwell. I'm Scottish, so we cover the Jacobite uprisings. We don't cover the US spanish war, the civil war, or the Cuban war. If you do history as an elective subject it's mostly world war one and two. You may cover some of the US civil rights stuff in social studies, but then again depending on the school you might not. Bearing in mind - I'm in my forties - I'm talking about the 80's and 90's.
The taxes asked for at the time - to pay for security - were much less than what those in the UK had to pay so the "no taxes without representation" was a complete charade. The primary reason the colonists wanted to break away from the UK was to facilitate a land grab from the natives - the UK has signed treaties with various tribes respecting their rights to their own land. But the colonists were greedy.
51st state would be Puerto Rico, while not technically America yet it's legally America you can use an American ID in Puerto Rico and Puerto Ricans can use Puerto Rican IDs in America and traverse between the two as if it was domestic air travel.
I studied a British history curriculum here at school for 7 years between 1965 and 72. Here is what we studied: Year 1 was the ancient world (Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, Rome), Year 2 was Roman Britain, the Dark Ages, then the Saxon, Danish and Viking invasions. Year 3 was Norman Conquest Norman England and the Middle Ages Year 4 was about the Tudor and Stuart Britain up to the Civil War. Year 5 took us up to 1850 looking at the Glorious Revolution, British political changes, the Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions, and some stuff on Empire building, looking at personalities like Clive of India and Wolfe in Canada. Not much about the American War of Independence, though. Years 6 and 7 (Advanced Level) looked in more detail at advanced topics such as Britain between 1750 and 1918, The French and Russian Revolutions and Roman Britain.
I’m in my fifties in the UK, I didn’t get taught it at school but you pick it up via History documentaries that mention it as a foot note. It’s not really important to us at all, but the general consensus is well done we don’t blame you, you did the right thing! Just a shame people died on both sides.
What surprised me a bit was that the Briton who was citing the whole thing suddenly got at 7.00 a picture of Frederick the Great, King of Prussia, together with his cavalry commanders. This is remarkable because (which is largely unknown) the Prussian king is one of the midwives of the USA. The British, because of French interference, wanted to stage a trade blockade in Europe using their fleet. The Royal Navy could have done it. The problem of the British, however, was that the Prussians absolutely did not agree. Now Prussia had almost no fleet. But the British had something on the mainland that was perfectly within reach of Prussia. The British royal family was also the ruling house in Hanover. And Hanover, is only a stone's throw away from the Prussian border and at this time also still has Prussian troops on its south-west flank and not only on the east where Berlin is only 300 km away. And because England could not afford to also wage a war on the European mainland and in such a case with Prussia and France as opponents, the trade blockade was omitted. And that kept the French in the war and the Yankees on the field...
My teacher in primary 5 was Mrs Grimes,she came over for a year and my teacher went to America,she brought the scratch n sniff stickers for good and bad behaviour haha,really liked her,she also brought with her bags of volcanic rock from Mount Etna,think she must have taught in Italy the year before or just took a holiday before she started in Dundee Scotland
According to William Dalrymple in his book The Anarchy, which is an account of the British East India Company’s rise to power in India, one factor in the Revolution was a fear that they would use the same tactics in North America. He quotes a Patriot writer as saying they were now “casting their eyes on America as a new theatre whereon to exercise their talents of rapine, oppression and cruelty”. This wasn’t a British government they were fearing, but a British company that had effectively set up its own government in India without active consent of its British board of directors or the British government.
I was taught about it at my school - this was back in the 70s so things may have changed. I was taught about the Boston Tea Party, Battle of Lexington and the first continental congress... we actually have a café chain here called Boston Tea Party. 😄
I didn't learn about the US history at all at school. At my school, We started in "pre-history" and progressed chronologically. We'd got to the Tudors and Stuarts by the time it came for us all to choose our "Options", and I dropped history when I picked my O levels. (O levels and CSEs are what we did before the GCSE exam reform of 1984-86. I've got a great mix of exam types, I'm in the cross over years where they did both systems) I was not at all interested in "modern" history. I'd wanted to learn more about the Ancient world, but we didn't get that option.
A perhaps relevant bit of information is that the American Revolution had a lot of support in Britain at the time. Many people thought that they had a very good point.
I remember being taught about Pownall(?), he was just one of many politicians who wanted the colonies to have representation in the Parliament. I wonder how the world would look today if that had happened?
Interestingly,the UK Parliament at that point,wasn't even representative of the actual population.Universal (electoral) suffrage,wasn't properly introduced until after the passing of the 2nd Earl Grey's1832 Reform Act.
Hello Both. In 1994 I spent 6 months working on Staten Island (NY). So I got a rare day off on July 4th. Near where I was renting an apartment near the Staten Island Ferry. In the evening I went into my local bar, the Cargo Cafe and it was fairly busy. I sat by myself at a small table. A couple of the locals came in and said “Why are you on your own? It’s Independence Day”. My reply, jokingly was “Why should I be happy. We lost.”
An interesting view that is often repeated is that Americans did not like what the King was doing. George III did not make laws, he was a constitutional monarch. The British Parliament made unpopular laws. The lack of representation for their taxes was not representation to the King, but the colonies wanted members in the British Parliament.
The American War of Independence really is an historical sideshow, and it isn't taught in schools. Conceivably it might crop up if it is specified as an optional specialist topic of study in a GCSE or A-level syllabus, as once “The Wild West” was, which, I remember, along with “The Tudors and Stuarts”, was studied by those who had opted to do GCSE History at the school I taught at around 1990.
I have always been interested by the American reference to the tyranny of King George, particularly in regard to ‘“taxation without representation”. By the time of the American revolution, taxation and pretty much all government, was the responsibility of the elected government (albeit via a limited electorate) rather than by the king, yet he gets the blame. I accept that he was the head of state however, the reality of British government even then, was far more complex. The belief of the King’s tyranny has however become ingrained, despite being a myth. Though it makes a great sound bite!!
Terms like tyrant and inalienable rights and the idea of government having to serve the people were taken from the Dutch Republic's DOI of 1581. The founding fathers were very critical of the Dutch Republic, but it was the only (semi) modern republic around and had resisted a king before and they studied it extensively. The American DOI really wasn't that new. It's when they had more time, with the constitution, that they came up with new and well thought through stuff. The king of the Dutch, Philips II of Spain, was a real tyrant though. Spanish Inquisition, burning at the stake, slaughters of protestant or otherwise rebelling cities.
When working for an American Bank whose managers were pretty much form the USA, they had problems understanding why to the UK staff, 4th July was a complete non event. We (of course) went and partook of the special buffet lunch provided and then went back to our desks and got on with our day as normal, while avoiding the Rah Rah Rah as much as possible.
I remember being taught a little bit about the American revolution (specifically the Boston tea party), but not in great detail. I seem to remember being taught more about James Wolfe in Canada. We mainly concentrated on British & European history through the ages as it was so interlinked - we were either at war with a nation, or in an `alliance with another one! When it came to my final exam year at 16, we were taught in great depth about the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars and the industrial revolution. By the way, hope you managed to see footage of the Coronation and Eurovision?
I think it’s important to keep in mind that the War of Independence and the Declaration can been the key focus of the origin of the USA (although that does ignore a great deal of history prior and the early history of other settlers and explorers from Asia, central and South America). Conversely, the origin of the UK does not have a key point in the same way. We grew and developed over hundreds (nay thousands of years) and did so both in conflict and collaboration with our neighbours in Europe and farther afield. The UK is rather like a piece of clay that has been moulded and remoulded numerous times by different allegiances and hence our language, culture and diet is a complex mix from all around. Another factor in the teaching of history in UK is that we encourage students to direct and question the order of history (for example was this wife of Henry VIII really adulterous?) rather than accepting things as “fact” because that’s what the books have always told us (although some politicians definitely want to control the “facts” of history). All of these things combined mean that the American Civil war is neither a big part of our history or a period that has a great deal to be analysed (may be the American historians should start that process and really ask who, what and why is really behind the revolution and who really were the beneficiaries (I think a lot of ordinary Americans might like to have some of the freedoms and benefits that are commonplace in most European countries.
No taxation without representation was already a fundamental premise in English law; the English Civil War had been triggered by demands by the king to raise taxes without the approval of Parliament. So in that sense, the American colonies saw themselves as being denied the same rights as had been already won in England. But the real underlying cause of it all was the British insistence that the colonies should only producer raw materials and that manufacture should be done in England. The colonies served as a source of materials and a market for finished goods. But this obviously choked development in the colonies. The taxes being rebelled against where the ones that penalised the production of finished goods in the colonies.
While the American Revolution may not be covered in great depth in the education system in general, my own home town has it's own connection to it. On 22nd April 1778 Whitehaven (my home town) had the dubious honour of being the site of the only American raid on British shores. Despite the destruction of a guard tower and much of the harbour front, the attack was ultimately thwarted. Far from feeling any animosity, the gentleman leading the raid, one Commander John Paul Jones is commemorated with a bust in the local library, a sculpture on the harbour and even has a pub named after him.
The siege of Gibraltar was more important than America, it received more troops and supplies. We also fighting the three major powers at the time. Spain, France and Holland.
having met a number of americans it always amuses me when they say how THEY beat the British in the usa .and then you find out they are of polish or italian or some other late arrival to america descent , also that they do not now that the declaration of independence that they are so proud of is based on the English Magna Carta
In general, Brits don't get taught about the revolution apart from one or two lessons when learning about Nepolianic history as we were fighting the French, amongst others, at the same time. We don't really know much about the war of independence other than what we glean from people like yourselves.
That was interesting. Little known fact about American independence was that it paved the way for the colonisation of Australia. After the revolution England had no place to send her ever growing convict population and the prisons were over crowding very quickly. The authorities were housing them on old ships called hulks in the Thames river. It was decided to send a group to Botany Bay, which was mapped along with the east coast of Australia by Lieutenant James Cook, circa 1770. The English government needed a penal colony to send their petty criminals to after they could no longer send them to their American colonies. Most notably Maryland and Virginia.
In my day (boomer), we learned in the UK about the invaders (Celts, Romans, Saxons, Vikings, Normans), the early middle ages (Crecy, Agincourt, Calais, Aquitaine, etc.) and then, in extraordinary depth, the social and economic history of the UK 1750 - 1930. We learned nothing about the history of Europe, let alone the US - a huge gap in our learning and understanding of the world and a great shame IMO as history is the shared narrative of the nations. I have spent a lot of time since then filling in the gaps and understanding the common threads.
I had pretty much the same education and like you have spent a lot of time looking at world history, perhaps more european but it's extremely interesting just don't watch any films or don't rely on them to be accurate!
@@nicolab2075 Aah. I beat you by a few years - I did mine in 1974. Maybe there were different options, or they changed the course. We did agriculture, canals, railways, white goods, and never got a foot closer to Europe than London.
There you go again on about American freedom, what freedom would that be , is it different than the freedom we have in Europe , UK , and most parts of the world 😊
To be honest, American history is just a tiny part of the history taught in the UK. IF it's taught at all. I've actually learned a lot more outside school (or at least in more detail), and even now I'm still doing that..
Sorry America but your reveloution was a bilp in world history and for Brits we learn about Napolion which ihappened at the same time. It was not mentioned while i was at school at all, vikings were big in history lessons.
The Napoleonic wars 1803 - 1815. American War of Independence 1775 - 1783. Not at the same time at all. You must have been at the bottom of your class 😂
I wonder how many Americans are aware of the role the British and particularly The Royal Navy played in the global struggle to abolish slavery in the nineteenth century?
In 1776 while the 13 colonies were becoming an independent country, the UK began running a horse race, the St Leger, which is still run annually. In the UK other more important historical events are taught, these being events like 1066 (Battle of Hastings), 1215 (Magna Carta), 1666 (Great fire of London) and 1966
@@Joanna-il2ur The important historical event in 1966 was your 11th birthday. Something else happened in England in 1966 which us English don't really like to talk about (much)
I studied history for GCSE and A Level and the only thing I learnt relating to the USA was the civil rights movement in the 60's and USA's role in WW2.
The American revolution was just a footnote in my history class too. We was taught about the 7 years war, which lead into the American war for independence, which lead into the French Revolution If it wasnt for France losing the 7 years war, assisting the States with their independence and getting nothing in return during their revolution, the Nepolionic wars would have never happened
Biggest irony : royalist France went virtually bankrupt assisting the 13 Colonies to become a republic;leading to mass inflation,socio-economic and political instability,riots,etc,which then led to the toppling of their own monarchy and the brief but bloody (pre-Napoleonic) French republic ! 😐
It's worth remembering that the British kept hold of the upper half of North America for another 150 years, and the King is still head of state there, although Canada is an independent country now. So essentially Britain lost a thin strip of land down about half the east coast. Britain is not responsible for all the territory the 13 colonies gained subsequently. None of our business.
The puritans were religious talaban like fanatics, they left as the bulk of the British didn't want to live without music, theatre, dancing, CHRISTMAS, wearing nice clothes and colours. They actually got into power here after we chopped off the kings head, then eventually we brought the monarchy back with golden handcuffs, so when the American revolution took place the king didn't have much power, but we had more fun because of him taking the lead in society! LOL
For my school's HISTORY O LEVEL we did The History of the British Empire and a part of this was, of course, The American War of Independence. And we studied it in some detail: The battles, the generals, life at the time on both sides of the conflict, consequences, etc. This included "the shot heard around the world', Bunker Hill in Boston, Saratoga Springs in NY and Yorktown. We also looked and analysed documents circulating at the time in order to support the history, e.g. revolutionary pamphlets, parliamentary speeches, punishments and those punished, etc. The course also included our struggles against the French in the USA and in Canada, India, Australia and New Zealand and South Africa. The O LEVELS (Ordinary) used to represent our first choices in our education (ages 14-16) and not all classes study the same subjects. Following these, for the academically minded, are the A Levels (Advanced Levels) where specialization is very prevalent and most pupils study 3-4 subjects at this level prior to Uni. I, for example limited my studies to FRENCH, GEOGRAPHY, LATIN and GENERAL STUDIES.
I’ve been teaching U.S. History for 18 years. The American colonies were established by a series of groups, for a variety of reasons. They were left unattended, free to do as they wished, with no taxes and no regulations. A freer - civilized - people never existed. This unofficial policy has been called “salutary neglect”. NEGLECT. Individual colonists were free to own as much land as they wished. Land prices were dirt cheap compared to Europe. They were free to make as much money as they could - tax free - and they were free to enslave human beings in order to do so. This is a very good example of a people enjoying - literally - TOO much freedom. That Americans say “we were living under tyranny” is evidence that Americans prefer to view themselves as victims. Not only were they the freest people in the history of the world, but they established governments based on the democratic Republican government of Parliament - minus the whole Royal sovereign thing. In other words : we did not set up a king, but we DID have elections. In addition to all of this, Americans enjoyed the protection of the greatest Army and Navy the world had ever seen, without having to pay one single Shilling in exchange. Free. This played out during The 7 Years War - which was truly the worlds First World War. A global catastrophe that the Colonists neatly avoided, and, in fact, greatly benefitted from more so than anyone else on Earth. Americans were already free. By 1776, Great Britain had made a few feeble attempts at getting the fully adult teenager to go back to being a depended child, but it was too late.
I note he correctly points out that we don't call it a revolution, we call it The American War of Independence, because it wasn't a revolution. I think that title is just part of the propaganda of the time, that's where all the talk of tyranny and taxes came from, taxes were at about 1 to 1.5%, a fifth of what they were in Britain. The cause was resentment among the American elite that they were subject to Crown appointed governors, they just thought it would be better if they ran things themselves. Once they were doing that, far from having a revolution they kept tye state governing structure (you still have governors for goodness sake, that's a colonial title). They then created an imitation of the UK system of two houses and an elected king, whose powers were similar to those of George III. Its probably the fact that it wasn't a proper revolution that made it work, look at the French and the Russians.
Puritans wanted more intolerance (or at least a different form of intolerance) so left on the Mayflour and Seedwell from Southampton. The speedwell took on water so they had to put into port at Plymouth to switch to one ship. Next key event would be the Boston Tea Party and Paul Revere’s famous ride then it all kicked right off! Coincidentally I just heard my daughter ask what thanksgiving is, his answer was ‘the native Americans saved the starving settlers, so the settlers part d them back by killing them with small pox.” Oversimplified, but not wrong.
American independence was inevitable, considering the amount of wealth that the country has in abundance. Colonists “Americans” needed to glorify in their identity of independence, otherwise it would never have worked out with all the other warring countries that would be forever wanting to have just more than a piece of the apple pie. The thirteen colonies were obviously British, so you might even call it a civil war and the home countries mentioned have been at loggerheads for centuries. Just a footnote in British History? Well we soon became staunch allies pretty soon after the dust settled, with the Canada war against USA aggression fitting in between. So the new world couldn’t detach itself completely from it’s origins, hence the thirteen red and white stripes still representing the British colonial founding fathers. That’s how I see it, if I’m wrong,? I don’t think I will lose much sleep over it 🤔
The people that left England to make America were actually against the king due to the fact they thought Catholicism was too frivolous , and wanted to go practice their own form of Christianity freely and saw America as the best place to do so, as the natives wouldn't fight conversion.
I could be wrong but I don't think Simon writes his own scripts , he just presents someone else's work. I've seen him flip on screen and cry out " How do you expect me to read this stuff? " which doesn't sound like he actually wrote it.
My experience of talking with American friends makes me wonder if the US history curriculum is still politically focused on welding their nation state together rather than providing historical breadth and context. The British Civil Wars of the mid seventeenth century and the Glorious Revelution of 1688 should be given some time in US schools, the American Revolutionary War didn't just spring from nowhere. Another fallacy which the US schools history curriculum seems to perpetuate is the power of the British Monarchy, by 1770 the influence of the King was nowhere near as great as many Americans think.
'The first people leaving Britain for America were the Puritans who were not escaping tyranny - they were the tyrannical ones and thought Britain was not strict enough on religion.
Correct.
@@Thurgosh_OG We should have had a public holiday when the puritans left these shores and called it “Piss Off Puritan Day “.😂🤣😂🤣
Lol my home port city of Plymouth 1620 here endeth the lesson.
Went to The Netherlands, who kicked them out for being too extreme, before then heading to the New World, religious fanatics essentially
Yep, they were just fine with religious persecution, so long as they were the ones doing the persecuting (evidenced by the expulsion from the colonies of anybody who didn't share their exact beliefs).
Americas greatest historical victory is nothing but a mere footnote in British history 😅
That’s a slap down right there 😂
Oof! That's a burn 😅
Harsh but true.
There was no America then, it was British vs British colonials; basically a civil war.
Saying it was America's victory is pushing it
As I say to my American son, the British can't be expected to take seriously a people who tried to make tea with cold water.
Lol. 😂😂 At least you try making it with warm ish water now! 😂😂😀
@@highvoltageswitcher6256 Not me, I'm a Brit and only boiling water will do.
@@welshgruff Yes, only boiling water for tea. I was trying to be kind to our American friends, they can’t seem to make tea in any eatery in Florida anyway.
its worse than just making tea with cold water, they tried making tea with cold saltwater
OR A FUCKING MICROWAVE.
The unspoken truth is that the revolution was engineered by powerful businessmen who saw the writing on the wall as the UK Parliament was moving inexorably towards outlawing slavery. Taxation without representation was just a useful slogan to rile up the populace.
^ This. Especially when you know that the founding fathers were mostly if not all British themselves and would have reasonably been able to tell that their demands for representation in Parliament would've been seen as favouritism had they been accepted; the 13 colonies had the same deal every other colony had in terms of local autonomy and had the exact same deal as most citizens of the home nations in terms of a right to vote (i.e. most people didn't have the right to vote - and thus no say in parliament - in the UK at the time either). The "No taxation without representation" soundbyte was exactly that, a pretense that played better to its populace than the *actual* reason - local wealthy elites wanting more money and power taking advantage of the current events of the time (Enlightenment philosophies and the Napoleonic War) to seize it.
EDIT: Totally got the time-frame confused; the First Anglo-Marathi war was the one going on at the time, and the First Carib War had occurred a few years prior. The Napoleonic Wars didn't happen until later.
Yep,spot on,as noted by some of Benjamin Franklin's correspondence ! 👌👍
vote was only for white land owners after independence. just like Britain..
@@smockboy I agree with most of what you say. Just a note about the Napoleonic Wars - they happened a good 20 years later.
And let's not forget that The Bank of England got mightily p*ssed off with the Colonies printing their own money with 0% interest thereby stealing huge sums of money in money printing for the colonies. The Bank of England then put pressure on the King to do something about it. The King himself was a huge cash borrower from the Bank of England.
One of the reasons to tax the US colonists was the fact that the UK had spent rather a lot of time, blood and money on the French and Indian War... The lack of representation was no worse than that enjoyed by the _vast majority_ of citizens in Britain at the time. So it could be regarded as a hissy fit by a bunch of ingrates who didn't want to pay their fair share for colonial defence (albeit dressed up as a noble cause). Other opinions are available.
The French Indian war started by the colonists. Washington,I believe,the taxes were to pay for it
Fun facts... 1776: Tea had never been cheaper, the average taxpayer in England payed 26 shillings a year, the average taxpayer in NEW England payed... 1 shilling a year.
When Ben Franklin turned up in Parliament in London and said "Americans are too poor to pay tax" he did so, DAYS after asking various members of Parliament to subscribe to his Get Rich Quick scheme for a privately owned 14th Colony, created by hiring mercenaries to slaughter pesky indiginous, and was wearing a 3 piece suit made of the finest Flemish Velvet that cost more than most peoples houses.
And he wondered why Parliament LAUGHED at him...
@@aestheticdemon3802 I knew parliament turned him down, but not the additional information. The house he owned in London under a pseudonym to hide he was a property owner in Great Britain, 32, Craven Street is now a museum for Franklin.
This, of course, is ignoring the fact that the Americans themselves bore the brunt of those conflicts, including the French and Indian War, and had completely paid for self-government in blood at the hands of the French and their Native American allies. Add to that the mercantilist rules that prevented Americans from manufacturing or building their own industries, and the gross negligence and profiteering of royalist governors, and we had every reason to have a "hissy fit." Which, by the way, was more than enough to kick the arse of the British Empire all the way back to London. Just sayin'.
@@johnalden5821 1. Actually, the brunt of kicking the French, fell on Wolfe and his expedition up the St Laurence, a venture that involved more than 100 Royal navy vessels, and vast amounts of military supplies, including by way of an example, over 1 MILLION pre made paper musket cartridges. The Expedition that captured Montreal and Quebec, founded British Canada, and seriously damaged the French position in the New world in a conflict that is ACTUALLY known as "The Seven Years War".
2. You didn't "kick us back to London", the French did, after WE saved your ungrateful asses from the French, you made an alliance with them, because you were traitors.
3. In fact only about 1/3rd of you were traitors, another 1/3rd didn't care who won, as they knew that the same stuffed shirt landed New England gentry would still be in charge, and 1/3rd actively opposed the traitors.
Further, after the French won the rebellion for the traitors, many of the non traitors LEFT the country and moved to... British Canada, which is part of why your attempts to invade that and murder its inhabitants and steal their property, in 1812, failed...
The taxes the 13 colonies were asked to pay, were owed to pay for the war against the French forces trying to take over the 13 colonies. Before the US independence only the rich paid tax and now only the rich don't pay tax. All men are born equal (some more equal than others it seems).
An interesting aspect of the “ talk” given by the official at Liberty Hall in Philadelphia,is that support for the revolution was far from universal,as most people still thought themselves “English” and were concerned about being isolated from support from the Motherland. I was surprised that this was emphasised as generally the Revolution is much touted as “Americans fight for freedom “!
@@PMexPAT That would be Mel Gibson then!
That was of course the WHOLE point... The leaders of the rebellion were ALL wealthy land owners, one of the tactics they tried before open rebellion was a boycott on designer luxury goods, with high tax, designer glassware from Waterford, designer crockery from that nice Mr Wedgewood, designer furniture from that nice Mr. Chippendale, and silk and satin clothing from the Fashion Houses of London, Paris and Milan.
One of the Wives of a senior member of "bin Washington's Al'Republica Network" wrote a letter that's still in the Library of Congress, to her friends to get them to support the boycott. The sentiment of the letter was basically...
"surely it must be possible to get clothes of wool and cotton such as the common people wear, made here in the Americas"
The Rebellion was NEVER about "Freedom" or "Democracy", it was about old Money New England Gentry not wanting to pay property taxes, and import duties on luxury goods.
@@PMexPAT Yes but history is always written by the winners, aren't they? Which is, by the way, the reason why French history books are so thin and full of pictures while the thick volumes of British history fill shelves around the world.
@@PMexPAT good to hear a more balanced perspective being talked about.
They were not bartering with the King. The King was really not "ruling". The British Prime Minister was. The British Parliament ran the country and set policies. But for some reason, many Americans talking about their history believe that it was the King they were fighting. Great Britain was already a constitutional monarchy at the time of the US War for Independence.
Dude, most Americans still think the royals rule our country, they know nothing about anything outside of America. Some of them think Europe and Africa are countries and couldn't point them out on a map.
All true, except that it is slightly more complicated. We didn't actually have a "Prime Minister", Walpole used the term and it was used about him, but it wasn't an official title. The first official time the name was used in a document was in 1878, by Disraeli
And now, ironically, so many Americans all but worship the British monarchy.
@@grabtharshammer Sorry, you are incorrect. The original title, “First Lord of the Treasury” is still the name used and even engraved on the letter plate of 10 Downing Street’s door.
Yes and no. The King's government would not have continued to govern without the backing of the King. He named the chief ministers and they still worked at his pleasure. The King was far more involved in overseeing his government than would be true even 50 years later, much less today. Moreover, the UK does not have a single written constitutional document -- rather, a series of documents, court rulings, etc., that cumulatively make up what they call a constitution. That has evolved over the centuries, and what would have been the "constitution" at that time would have been very different from what it would be considered today.
If people weren't taught it in School it doesn't mean we don't know anything about it, we know all about it, The UK knows a lot more about America than a lot of Americans do.
than MOST americans do.
@@itwoznotme isn't education wonderful?
Everything I know came despite my schooling, rather than because of it.
@@eadweard. You obviously attended a terrible school. 🤣🤣A good school should teach you how and where to find information and then give you the tools to critically evaluate it.
@@welshskies I was labelled stupid very early on and then excluded (de facto if not de jure).
We were busy fighting the French at the time and we consider that more important, its our favourite hobby fighting the French 😂 so we expect a thanks for getting you New Orleons 😅
Still does seem a favourite hobby, believe we took a short break from it in 1939 and after the fall of Cameron it became mandatory, until the Ukraine conflict, when we started remembering they were our favourite good looking cousins we had a crush on. As we can't say that through embarrassments, we pull their hair instead (French not US as US cousins all have guns and tugging hair no good against 9mm parabellum)
Kinda funny, to some of us the founding fathers, the pilgrims etc. left Europe because they were no longer allowed or able to prosecute and persecute others because of religious freedoms here in Europe. They left to a new land, where they could persecute those who believed otherwise. Not because they were themselves persecuted.. They just did an Amber Heard on it when they retold the story.
BOOOOOOOM! Well said. The US preach freedom and have less freedom form the continent that they left; because the people that left were religious fanatics that wanted the power to control. IRONY! Every President has to swear on a bible.. give me a break?!!!!! Poor Obama..Do you have a US passport , are you Muslim.. fucked up!
"did an Amber Heard on it" classic!
This is ignorant historical revisionism. The Anglicans of the 17th Century would not have known religious freedom if it bit them in the ass. They did routinely persecute not just other protestants (including Scottish Calvinists) but also Catholics, Jewish people and anyone else they suspected of being a threat to their established religion. The settlers of Massachusetts had no power to persecute anyone in the UK, and they were trying to found their own congregations in the fashion they believed in. Modern-day concepts of freedom of religion were not born or implemented until at least 100 years later, as part of the 18th Century Enlightenment.
@@johnalden5821 ..and yet they created religious communities that continued to exact the same strict controls and punishments they were claiming to be -running- sailing from, hardly seems kosher. Was like a breeding ground for proto-cults ffs. How many new branches of 'the faith' did they give us!? There were hundreds of different religious communities scattered across Europe at the time, trying out different forms of this and that, they were however limited to the laws of their land in terms of punishment and judgement, where specific contracts weren't pertinent (landownership and the Church, you know there were some tired scribes). They didn't want religious freedom, they wanted *their* version of religious freedom, that is to say they wanted their particular brand of their faith to be the one which laws were made after, which others followed in public (and which they were themselves claiming to be an afront, when the shoe was on the other foot). They had plenty of opportunity to live and practice their faith, just not to punish the heretics that believed otherwise. In whatever new world they created, they could, would and by accounts, did. There wasn't "practice as you want, how you want and express it however you want" in the modern sense but they weren't expecting an Inquisition either.. [I... really mustn't make that joke]. As indeed did many after them. Power struggles and the resulting pogroms were common pretty much anywhere there was a cross to be seen. And anywhere there was not, frankly.. I'll stick with that as being nearer the likely truth than either claims of a perfectly free Europe; with Synagogues and Mosques scattered between the Churches and everybody sharing the love both within and without (?) the faith, nor that of the Pilgrim Fathers.
@@johnalden5821 I agree completely. The Test Acts of the 1670s effectively prevented anyone who was not prepared to swear an oath denying transubstantiation and to take Communion in an Anglican church from holding any civil or military office, from sitting in Parliament or from going to university. They were not fully repealed until the 19th Century.
A lovely old American friend of mine who fought and was wounded in the Korean War was completely unaware that thousands of servicemen from the British Commonwealth also fought there too.
My granddads fought in korea
@@alexrowson-brown6568 Korea was one war my family managed to miss, we did have someone in Kenya, Malaya, Borneo, Aden, Cyprus and Oman. 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Had two uncles who were in Korea..one in the 41st (independent) Royal Marines and the other in the Royal Engineers it uses to be told at the time amongst the family that one built bridge's the other would follow and blow them up
Th8s annoys me as an Australian. We fought Korean, Vietnam, Afghanistan, WW1 and WW11.
Yer as he says it's only taught extremely minimally in the UK. In all of UK history from the UK's point of view it was not a significant event, both at the time and afterwards. The 13 colonies and the later wider USA was not particularly important or profitable to the British Empire compared to other British colonies. It was its islands in the Caribbean that were by far the most profitable and important to the British Empire at the time due to the then extremely valuable (white gold) sugar they provided.
At the time of the American War of Independence, Britain was also engaged in a major international colonial war with France and Spain, who were both also heavily aiding the 13 colonies. Due to Britain's resources being divided and stretched between both simultaneous conflicts, Britain was in serious danger of losing its international colonial war with France and Spain and, crucially, losing too many of its absolutely vital and profitable Caribean islands.
Britain had to make a choice. Either concentrate on securing the mostly insignificant and unprofitable 13 colonies, which didn't pose any current or future international threat to Britain or the rest of its empire. Or concentrate on winning against the major current and future international threat to its empire of France and Spain and secure its extremely significant and profitable Caribbean Islands. The choice was obvious.
It was the right choice. Britain went on to win that international war against France and Spain and managed to secure and maintain its position in the Caribbean, despite Spain successfully managing to increase and strengthen their position in the Caribbean. That victory allowed Britain over time to further increase its empire all over the world and establish itself as a new dominant super wealthy superpower above France and Spain, for only the minor loss of what were then insignificant and unprofitable 13 American colonies.
Also, who'd not want to beat Monsieur Jonny onions at any given opportunity
I did years of History at school and a History degree at University and we didn't do any American history at all ..... and the American Revolution and Independance would just be a footnote. What you have to remember is that we had 50 other colonies we were looking after and were constantly at war around the world and in Europe .....
We also had the Caribbean and Canada so we didnt really feel like we were missing out on anything in the Americas
Yep. in 1776, the economy of Jamaica alone was larger than all 13 American colonies combined.
When were you in school? Nowadays I think it's very common to focus on the Cold War period and the American Civil Rights Movement, and we also cover some American stuff when we talk about the Slave Trade.
@@bookswithike3256 at school in the 1960s, University in the 1970s. I guess the Civil Rights movement and Cold War was going on whilst I was at school so I don't really count that as History, more Current Events !
I think the British attitude on this is pretty ridiculous. How many of those 50 other colonies became the largest economy and biggest superpower in world history? How many of those other colonies became the UK's premier ally in World War 2 and the Cold War? Basically, the history is that George III and his government made the biggest mistake and showed the greatest incompetence of any Empire in world history (at least until the Spanish lost the rest of the Americas). So, yeah, you guys don't like to talk about it. We understand. The glory that was Jamaica was all worth it.
USA History was a super short chapter
..maybe 2 weeks?
Romans
Vikings/Scandi history
UK history
French Revolution
Russian Revolution
UK/Belgium/French/German/Italian Imperialism in Africa & Asia
The 1st. & 2nd World Wars took a lot more time to go through and the Socio/Political consequences for the world, as a whole
hello from Denmark 🌸
No late medieval history, Reformation or 30 year war?
Mosopotamia, Egypt, Greeks, Roman, ottoman empire, lower middle ege, dark century, rinascimet, discover of America continet, colonialis, the revolution periods, napoleon, new colonialis etc etc etc.
We had loads to get through at school in the UK . Roman, Anglosaxon, Norman, Medieval, Tudors, Stuarts, Georgian, Victorian and the more modern stuff. The American Revolution was reduced to a single lesson that had to cram in the settling of America, the trade wars between Britain, France, Spain and Portugal, the growth of French military power in Europe and the march towards the Napoleonic Wars.
@@LoneWolf-rc4go Some of that is UK wide, some isn't. In Scotland, we learn about our own kings and queens, not the Tudors (other than when they affected Scotland). We learn about the medieval times from a completely different point of view. The 100 years war, for instance, is (or was anyway) taught from the point of view that the French were our allies and the English were the aggressors.
@@GOGS-zg7rd That's a good point. I doubt that there would have been much about Roman and Anglo Saxon history. I suppose English and Scottish history only really starts to align after the Tudor period.
In England we learn about our entire history, going back as far as the romans. The American revolution is a footnote on that.
English history doesn't go back that far try 6th century 200 years after the romans left
He is talking about world history, not just English history. In my school days, we started with 6700 BC, since it was the first confirmed permanently inhabited place here in Vučedol. Greater advantage was given to world history and just understanding the context, causes and consequences than memorizing historical dates
We learn back even before the Romans, though it's less history than archaeology at that point as Britain was pre-literate. I remember history trips to local stone circles in secondary school in the 90s.
@@gwynwilliams4222 just because it wasn’t called England it doesn’t mean it isn’t our history. The place I live is a Roman name and there is a Roman fort ruin within walking distance of me.
@@gwynwilliams4222 I guess the Italians should pack it in with thinking they have anything to do with Roman history too then eh? Ridiculous logic.
I always tell Americans, for you the American Revolution was the defining point in your country's history. For the British? It was just Tuesday. ~ Bison
If I had a dollar for every colony declaring independence from Britain, I've have about 60 dollars. Australian dollars, sadly.
He puts it very well. Here in NZ the American Revolution is barely if at all touched on unless at a higher level of education where it gets incorporated into the war between Britain, France and Spain, in which the revolution in the American colonies was something of a sideshow, much more importance being given to the retention of the sugar islands of the Caribbean, America at that time not being of great economic value as a colony.
The fact that we, along with dozens of other colonies became independent from Britain is only of general interest. I am pretty confident that most Kiwis would be hard pressed to name the year of our independence, let alone the date as it came about through a gradual, evolutionary process. We tend to focus on our founding document, the Treaty of Waitangi signed between Britain and Maori in the mid 19th century as being our beginning.
The wonderfully clarifying thing about gaining your independence is that, once you have kicked the Empire's ass, you definitely know that you have it. Otherwise, you have to keep asking the pommies how much you actually have.
From dodgy school memory 1907? But I personally remember it was in the mid 70s when England simultaneously abandoned us for the EEC and cut the apron strings.
It is both sad and funny to me that they are now willing to welcome us back, and I'm still angry enough to remember the blood spilt and lost on their behalf in the wars.
@@andrewgood4230 There were millions of British people who vehemently disagreed with joining the EEC.
@@andrewgood4230 Andrew, you are right we did drop so much of the commonwealth for our new 'friends' in the " Common Market" ... a huge mistake for which Britain is still paying. But as another commented there were millions who didn't want to do it.
As for the sacrifice your country and every other country in the Empire made, this will forever be remembered and appreciated by those who know here in the UK.
@@andrewgood4230 One last thing, many thousands of troops from Britain fought against the Japanese in Asia, helping to protect both NZ and Australia from a great evil. Please don't take offence as none is intended.
We were taught about the American Revolution in History when I was at school. We were also taught the Russian Revolution, the French Revolution, The Agrarian Revolution and the Industrial Revolution.
There were a lot of revolting people around in those days 😁
I don’t remember been taught about the American revolution, the Wall Street crash yes, but it did affect the whole world.
@@jemmajames6719 Different educational districts teach different things to different ages. Oft times there is a complete switch, ie what one district learns between 12-14, another will do at GCSE, yet another at A Level, and another, not at all. It's not a one sized fits all syllabus.
@@threestepssideways1202 Excellent use the oft in there, not seen nearly enough and it's needed these days with often getting used incorrectly far too often.
@@threestepssideways1202 In Scotland we were taught a lot of English History (The Norman Conquest, for example) but were taught no Scottish History at all. Thankfully things have changed since the 1970s.
Poor King George. Remembered for losing New England, not for gaining Canada, Australia, India, New Zealand, Malaysia, Gibraltar, and Planet Uranus.
Nope, actually King George is more remembered here for going mad, but still trying to rule. The America thing is really a small footnote. They made a film, it's called " The madness of King George" not "How King George lost the American Colonies". His madness is important and current because it could be hereditary and show up in another British King or Queen.
Wait, Uranus is British?
@@johnalden5821 Well the rest of me is, I would have to assume that part is as well
@@Diovanlestat Maybe. . .it already has (?)
He's remembered for being mad, having a poor relationship with his son and heir, at the time of his death he was the longest reigning British monarch (his granddaughter, Queen Victoria went on to reign for longer) and had the longest reign of a male monarch to this day. He's remembered for having loads of children but those children not producing legitimate children apart from his eldest son who had a daughter, Charlotte, who was beloved. She married a chap called Leopold (who went on to become King of the Belgians. Charlotte and Leopold were soon expecting a baby shortly after marrying, sadly both Charlotte and the baby died during childbirth. Despite having a number of adult children and numerous illegitimate grandchildren, George had no legitimate grandchildren so there was a scramble amongst his remaining children to marry and produce heirs, by this time his sons were in their 40s and 50s. Ultimately it was his 4th son, Edward Duke of Kent, who produced a legitimate heir, Alexandria Victoria who went on to rule as Queen Victoria. Interestingly, Edward married a widowed mother of two, a German named Princess Victoria. She was the sister of Leopold, who had married Edward's niece, Charlotte, the death of whom created the scramble to get married. Leopold and Victoria had a number of siblings, their brother Ernst had two children, the younger of whom was called Albert. Albert went on to famously marry his cousin, Queen Victoria.
I had family that arrived in the 1680s New york area by the time of the revolution they were a successful farming family having had lands given for this reason by the crown. Come the revolution they expressed as did many the desire to stay loyal to the crown, they were burned out and attacked, forcing their journey to upper Canada. That's how I tend to view the American War of Independence.
I am forever grateful that my family too were loyalists and came to Canada - my home and native land!🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦
american history is full of them taking other peoples land and making false promises (like most governments ) :)
In Britain at the time the American revolution was a 2nd rate battle. When the country was at war with France, Spain and the Netherlands at the same time America was a minor annoyance.
More a battle in the war with France?
It’s been a while since I was at school but I remember history lessons spending time on: Ancient Egypt, Romans, Saxons, Vikings, Norman invasion and associated battles, Tudors, Stuarts, English Civil War, Georgian era, French revolution, Victorian era, WW1 and WW2.
ditto. that sounds about the same as i had 1981-86
The taxation was to pay for your defense during the 7 years war.
The French Revolution was caused by the economic depression brought on by the help given to the Americans during the Revolutionary War which was never recompensed. That's why the Brits aren't overly upset about loosing America when it ended up destroying the French And we were already making vastly more out of India and elsewhere whilst America just cost us money.
As far as some British people are concerned getting rid of the rabble in the American colonies was a good thing. 🤣🤣
No, they were mainly our own kith and kin.
@@JJ-of1irBollocks.. best thing the yanks ever did.. in point of fact the only good things they ever did..I’m delighted we don’t have any links to them..🙄🇬🇧
@@Ionabrodie69 No.. they were religious nutcases that were not wanted in the UK/Europe.. that fled because they wanted to control in a n extreme religious 'puritan' fashion.. which explains the mess of your country to date!!!! The amount of blind, non educated spew that US people prescribe to is cringey to the rest of the world. Good luck you muppets. Stay in your ignorance!
@@JJ-of1ir You're not overly familiar with the concept of humour are you?
American history must be great as its only a couple of weeks old🤣🤣🤣
So much easier than European 😂
Do they no study other countries?
In italy, even though we have Sooo much, we start with mespotanya/egypt/Persia for the first 5 years and then move on to other topics.
@@mattia8327 "Do they not study other countries?"
What other countries? ;-)
@@mattia8327they think the USA is the only country haha
The Pilgrim Fathers didn't leave to escape tyranny. They left because we wouldn't let them press witches and burn them.
or Catholics.
Check your history. The "Pilgrim Fathers" refers to the Plymouth Colony, which never in its history convicted anyone of witchcraft. Massachusetts Bay, yes -- but they were not the group known as the Pilgrims. In England, itself, of course, an estimated 500 people were executed for witchcraft -- probably 90 percent of them women. The tricky thing about history, you see, is that is consists of details. You can look them up on something called the Internet.
@@johnalden5821 Or books. A lot of bigoted ignorance from people who think Stephen Fry's witty comments are historical facts!
@@johnalden5821 1000s of women were killed as witches in Britain. Some estimates are as high as 15,000.
France's role in the war of Independence aggravating our usual antipathy to the French.
Well, the French paid for the American Revolutionaries, really just to piss off the English. This conversation reminds me of the Mitchell and Webb sketch about our nukes, which makes me laugh just thinking about it :)
AWI sometimes called the War of France's Revenge.
One thing American's don't seem to understand about the revolutionary war is that even back then the king's powers were limited by the constitution. The crown had had no direct ability to levy taxes since the English civil war. Most of the colonists issues were with Parliament not the crown in fact many of the founding fathers considered themselves loyal subjects. It was only the King's arrogant rejection of their appeals for justice which led to outright rebellion. If the King hadn't been plagued with debilitating physical and mental illness he may well have backed the colonists against the greedy corrupt politicians in Westminster leading to an even stronger future Empire with a less centralized Federal style government incorporating more than a fifth of the world's people. Now imagine where we would be now under that system?
I'll think you'll find we're more concerned with the French😂
Well, we do had a looonnggg history of fighting them
I think because the UK has such a long history anything we were taught about US history was quite brief. I can remember learning about the Romans, the Middle Ages, the wars of the roses, the wars with France etc and then going on to learn about the British Empire, Industrial Revolution, French Revolution and Napoleon. By the time we were coming up to school leaving exams we learned 20th century European history and about the world wars. The only thing I remember learning about US history was the Boston Tea Party and the Civil War. I also once did a history project on the Alamo, mostly because I liked the movie.
little annie. I spent six months on a course at a US Base in Florida 1973. In their library I picked up a book about the Alamo. Very interesting. It named all the US participants and where they came from, mostly I recall from the UK. Love to find that book again.
@@albertplumb7206 Wow, that is really interesting and just about everybody in the UK have heard of the Alamo .... even if it's just the joke from "American Werewolf in London";-)
@@xanx1234 I am afraid the mention of "American Werewolf in London" went over my head! (I have never seen it). I was a 13 year old schoolboy when the film Alamo came out so that is my reference point.
What the US fails to undertand is that Britain only gave the US revolt its partial attention as Britain at the time had a lot going on all round the world; multiple wars in europe & Middle east, wars/colonisation of the Indian subcontinent(which britain viewed as a lot more valuable than the US), multiple wars & colonisations in Africa, wars & colonisations in south east asia, the colonisation of all of Oceania(australia, new zealand, papua new guinea & multiple pacific islands inc Hawaii).
In addition to which its also strongly believed that powerful business men in Britain were pushing the british government to let the US have its independence, its well known that at the time that British govt was looking at banning slavery in all colonies and that powerful business men wanted the highly lucrative slave trade to continue in the americas which would require the US's independence from Britain.
The majority of those fighting on the British side were Belgian and German mercenaries. There were probably more British military trained people (deserters and retired) fighting on the colonial side.
@@StephenBoothUK true, our real armies were busy fighting wars elsewhere.
I don't remember being taught anything about America in history classes. In geography, we learned about North American mountain ranges though, that's all. The first time I learned about the War of Independence was aged 16 in Minnesota on the way to a 4th July party! I asked "so who were you guys getting independence from?" and there followed a few seconds of silence lol.
lol
I wonder if anyone could reply to your question.
Sounds awkward
This video explains a lot about the history and geography taught in American high schools, as you see videos on youtube where college students don't know the difference between a country and a continent, they think Europe is a country, and have no Idea where certain countries or continents are in the world map, which I think is shocking.
When I was at school in the UK, we did a whole semester of Native American history.
Same here.
And me
I'm 55 but I remember a week about American history and the same on Native Americans, Australia probably took two weeks and India nearly a year.
Do you remember all the parts of a Buffalo 🐃 🤔
" semester" !?
We were taught the Russian and French Revolution etc in school . Nothing about America . However learning doesn’t end when you leave school , and like a lot of people we’ve read all about American history and know a fair bit . 🏴
Never learned about the American war of independence. British have so much history, no offence it's not really a big moment for us.
Well, when you have a history as long an varied as British history you kinda struggle to fit it all in. 😁
The American couple refer to Boadicea, the 100 years war, the Tudors being a "footnote in American history". All these things happened centuries before America as a country, or even a group of colonies even existed
I believe she was referring to american history classes rather than American history
One of the things that American should remember is that British history till 1776 is there history too.
And not just British history - there were many European cultures that populated the Americas. It's all their history too.
Something I find hysterical is when Americans tell us Brits that we should be ashamed of our colonial past. I like to point out to them that us Brits are the descendants of people that DIDN'T colonise anyone. Our ancestors stayed at home. Americans, however, are the offspring of those that went to America and colonised it.
Don't remember being taught about the American Revolution at school. As it had little impact on the world at the time. As we tend to teach history by themes over time. I don't think that the American Revolution would be included, except possibly for bankrupting France and triggering the French Revolution. I think that trade between the US and UK got back to normal pretty quickly, with the bonus that the US now had to pay for it's own defence.
It is mystifying to me how the birth of one of the largest countries in the world, with perhaps the most impact on world history over the past 200 years, can be thought of as having "little impact." When viewed from current times, which is when the education we're discussing should be occurring, it is clearly a huge omission. It is like not teaching the history of India or China. It is purely British chauvinism not to teach American history, especially since it is integrally related to British history. I get it, King George III dropped the ball. It's' embarrassing. You guys don't like to talk about it. But it reflects poorly on your educational system, nonetheless.
@@johnalden5821 I said "at the time". Later the US would only appear in our history lessons as footnote in the Napoleonic Wars and a reason for the Atlantic Slave Trade. The US would only appear as a major player if we studied 20th Century history as an option. Before that the US had very little impact on the European History we were taught. Remember how long the US had a policy of "isolationism". Apart from wars with the Spanish. We have about 2,000 years of history to keep us busy enough.
@@corringhamdepot4434 So this British version of history is that the United States popped onto the scene in the 20th Century and no reason to explore how the most powerful country in the world developed up to that point? That is not history. It is literally failing to teach history. I would submit to you that the origins of the United States (and many other countries) is more important to the UK than whether the Count of Blois or the Duke of Anjou sat under a now moldy crown.
@@johnalden5821 So give me a list of historical events where the US impacted Europe before 1900. Apart from selling us cotton and tobacco, buying slaves, bankrupting France and taking land from Spain. The US barely had a navy or army of any size before the 20th century. A couple failed attempts to invade Canada are not of much interest.
@@johnalden5821 How much British history do you study?
We get taught about the British Empire so it does tend to come under part of that.
G'day Guys! Here in Australia during the first 4 years of high school we had a general coverage of most European (especially British) from 1066 forwards...So we did the Hundred Years wars, Louis XIV etc in France 7 Years war Napoleonic wars as well as the War of Independence/1812 War and through the colonising periods etc up to WWII so no "in depth" study of any particular time/event as that would be covered in the final 2 years of high school when we chose either "Ancient History" or Modern History (from the French Revolution until the present day) Cheers!
I was senior student in 1965 ( I know a long time ago) I took history from year 8 to year 12. We learned no American history at all - except for civil war. The war of Independence was only mentioned as a footnote. I still have my text books and did a quick check to make sure i hadn't forgotten what we learned at the time.
We did not learn anything about the third English civil war when I was at school, but the UK has a lot of history, as does USA, Canada, Europe etc. Hi from the English midlands.
"The Americans consider the American Revolution a 'win' against Britain, we consider it a lucky ffrikin' escape!" (Or words to that effect!) Hat Tip to Al Murray/the Pub Landlord...... 😊
The thing to remember is it was a small event for us. The question is why did the largest super power in the world let the US go. It's because more important things were happening like the fight against Napoleon. The reality is we put comparatively little effort into keeping the US. I understand why it is taught the way it is in the US and it's importance to you. But for us it doesn't really pass the 'so what test". Sorry but it's true.
I remember renaming Independance Day to Treason Day, but that was just to wind up my American colleagues.
east coast of US was a revolting swamp :d
We used to be taught all about America from Christopher Columbus, early colonies, the Pilgrim Fathers, 7 Years War, American Revolution, War of 1812, slavery, Civil War, in the 1970s and before for GCE O Level and A Level exams. After the National Curriculum introduction in the mid 1980s it seems to have severly declined in favour of maths and science subjects.
For all the accusations of tyranny there was no actual actions like in Spanish or French colonies. The taxes were to repay the costs of keeping you from being ruled by France during the 7 Years War, which if Britain had lost you really would have known what tyranny was, look at any French colony for how that turns out like Haiti amongst many more.
The internal politics of the colony were much more complex than is normally discussed and the interesting bits that are much more awkward to the tyranny story are now hidden but easily found when you go looking.
The Great Britain vs Britain vs UK is great fun to talk about! I live in Shetland which is a group of remote islands in Scotland (we're the ones in the box or just cut off completely because we're so north). So Shetland is part of Scotland so is part of the UK. Shetland is also British, as that term refers to England, Wales and Scotland in their entirety (basically just not NI). Shetland isn't part of Great Britain however as we are a separate island and Great Britain refers to the land mass.
Essentially we're taught that we tightened the nut too far due to other factors taking precedence, so you rebelled. We were fighting in Europe and elsewhere so couldn't respond sufficiently with troops and ships to stop you getting independence. Especially when you were getting help from the foreign powers we were already fighting. Its taught that at the end of the war, most of the loyalists and allied tribes moved to Canada. You tried invading Canada later on but were knocked back and we (mostly Canada) won the war of 1812. If anyone had a gripe I assume it would be the Canadians, but that doesn't seem to be their attitude. You'd probably be better seeing how Canada teaches the US war of Independence and 1812.
Now that I may have to research and maybe the Mexican view as well
Also that it was French backed as well.
From what I keep hearing from Canadians, it seems when teaching the War of 1812, they treat it as part of their own national history to take pride in, despite them still being British at the time and not yet their own independent country. For example, they will claim Canada burned down the White House all by itself, despite that being a naval raid using the British Navy to deliver troops up the Potomac river into Washington DC. In the USA the war isn't taught as "USA fighting troops of a nation called Canada". It's taught as "USA fighting Britain, in the part of the British empire that will later become the nation of Canada."
The US holds no ill will toward Canada for burning down the White House because it teaches it as something the British Empire chose to retaliate with using the Empire's troops on Canadian territory, not as a decision made by a country called Canada, which didn't exist yet.
Note that the UK was not actually fighting any European rivals in 1775 when we began our war of independence. Yes, we managed to obtain European help, but not until several years after the war began. I believe most people would say that was the product of good diplomacy on our part. Most of your comment seems to be confusing the Revolution with the War of 1812, when, yes, the UK was in the midst of the Napoleonic Wars. You are incorrect about the outcome of the War of 1812. Nobody won it. It was a draw. The Treaty of Ghent returned the parties to status quo antebellum. No territory changed hands, no party conceded anything. Everyone just agreed to stop fighting. That does not constitute a victory for anyone. Canada survived, the U.S. survived, the UK survived. The entire episode had no result historically.
@@johnalden5821 I said this is what we are taught. (In primary and secondary school.)
We're taught that the East India company was an extension of the rich and powerful and created so much trouble and got so big it was taken over by the government.
We're taught that throughout this period of "exploration" that we were either at war, or in an uneasy peace. Usually with France and Spain and whatever local populace we aided, protected, then took over in the Indies. That we were spread too thin and it was after this period that the proper British Empire started.
There's really only 4 US periods covered and briefly at that:
The initial landings in Roanoke/Raleigh. Essentially a ghost story and then a quick overview of starving in a land of plenty.
The seven years war against France and their native allies.
A quick overview about working with the settlers and natives to defeat the French and take over new France.
The 1775 war of independence.
Same thing - an overview of who the main players were and what happened.
The war of 1812.
Usually an afternote that it didn't end when the US became a country.
We spent longer on the Celts, Romans, Egyptians, Vikings and Normans when I was young. We did some stuff on the commonwealth, usually around the commonwealth games.
Most schools cover the war of the Tudors, Henry the VIII and Elizabeth the first - then it usually goes to Cromwell.
I'm Scottish, so we cover the Jacobite uprisings.
We don't cover the US spanish war, the civil war, or the Cuban war. If you do history as an elective subject it's mostly world war one and two. You may cover some of the US civil rights stuff in social studies, but then again depending on the school you might not.
Bearing in mind - I'm in my forties - I'm talking about the 80's and 90's.
The taxes asked for at the time - to pay for security - were much less than what those in the UK had to pay so the "no taxes without representation" was a complete charade. The primary reason the colonists wanted to break away from the UK was to facilitate a land grab from the natives - the UK has signed treaties with various tribes respecting their rights to their own land. But the colonists were greedy.
51st state would be Puerto Rico, while not technically America yet it's legally America you can use an American ID in Puerto Rico and Puerto Ricans can use Puerto Rican IDs in America and traverse between the two as if it was domestic air travel.
I studied a British history curriculum here at school for 7 years between 1965 and 72. Here is what we studied:
Year 1 was the ancient world (Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, Rome),
Year 2 was Roman Britain, the Dark Ages, then the Saxon, Danish and Viking invasions.
Year 3 was Norman Conquest Norman England and the Middle Ages
Year 4 was about the Tudor and Stuart Britain up to the Civil War.
Year 5 took us up to 1850 looking at the Glorious Revolution, British political changes, the Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions, and some stuff on Empire building, looking at personalities like Clive of India and Wolfe in Canada. Not much about the American War of Independence, though.
Years 6 and 7 (Advanced Level) looked in more detail at advanced topics such as Britain between 1750 and 1918, The French and Russian Revolutions and Roman Britain.
Which country did you study in?
I’m in my fifties in the UK, I didn’t get taught it at school but you pick it up via History documentaries that mention it as a foot note. It’s not really important to us at all, but the general consensus is well done we don’t blame you, you did the right thing! Just a shame people died on both sides.
What surprised me a bit was that the Briton who was citing the whole thing suddenly got at 7.00 a picture of Frederick the Great, King of Prussia, together with his cavalry commanders. This is remarkable because (which is largely unknown) the Prussian king is one of the midwives of the USA. The British, because of French interference, wanted to stage a trade blockade in Europe using their fleet. The Royal Navy could have done it. The problem of the British, however, was that the Prussians absolutely did not agree. Now Prussia had almost no fleet. But the British had something on the mainland that was perfectly within reach of Prussia. The British royal family was also the ruling house in Hanover. And Hanover, is only a stone's throw away from the Prussian border and at this time also still has Prussian troops on its south-west flank and not only on the east where Berlin is only 300 km away. And because England could not afford to also wage a war on the European mainland and in such a case with Prussia and France as opponents, the trade blockade was omitted. And that kept the French in the war and the Yankees on the field...
My teacher in primary 5 was Mrs Grimes,she came over for a year and my teacher went to America,she brought the scratch n sniff stickers for good and bad behaviour haha,really liked her,she also brought with her bags of volcanic rock from Mount Etna,think she must have taught in Italy the year before or just took a holiday before she started in Dundee Scotland
According to William Dalrymple in his book The Anarchy, which is an account of the British East India Company’s rise to power in India, one factor in the Revolution was a fear that they would use the same tactics in North America. He quotes a Patriot writer as saying they were now “casting their eyes on America as a new theatre whereon to exercise their talents of rapine, oppression and cruelty”. This wasn’t a British government they were fearing, but a British company that had effectively set up its own government in India without active consent of its British board of directors or the British government.
I was taught about it at my school - this was back in the 70s so things may have changed. I was taught about the Boston Tea Party, Battle of Lexington and the first continental congress... we actually have a café chain here called Boston Tea Party. 😄
A very good café chain, too.
I didn't learn about the US history at all at school.
At my school, We started in "pre-history" and progressed chronologically.
We'd got to the Tudors and Stuarts by the time it came for us all to choose our "Options", and I dropped history when I picked my O levels.
(O levels and CSEs are what we did before the GCSE exam reform of 1984-86. I've got a great mix of exam types, I'm in the cross over years where they did both systems)
I was not at all interested in "modern" history. I'd wanted to learn more about the Ancient world, but we didn't get that option.
A perhaps relevant bit of information is that the American Revolution had a lot of support in Britain at the time. Many people thought that they had a very good point.
I remember being taught about Pownall(?), he was just one of many politicians who wanted the colonies to have representation in the Parliament. I wonder how the world would look today if that had happened?
Parliament rules and makes the laws.Representatives are voted in by the people.
@@iriscollins7583 ...and a mere handful actually _do_ represent their constituents.
Interestingly,the UK Parliament at that point,wasn't even representative of the actual population.Universal (electoral) suffrage,wasn't properly introduced until after the passing of the 2nd Earl Grey's1832 Reform Act.
Maybe we should have joined with the colonists and have had a little revolution all of our own?
Hello Both. In 1994 I spent 6 months working on Staten Island (NY). So I got a rare day off on July 4th. Near where I was renting an apartment near the Staten Island Ferry. In the evening I went into my local bar, the Cargo Cafe and it was fairly busy. I sat by myself at a small table. A couple of the locals came in and said “Why are you on your own? It’s Independence Day”. My reply, jokingly was “Why should I be happy. We lost.”
An interesting view that is often repeated is that Americans did not like what the King was doing. George III did not make laws, he was a constitutional monarch. The British Parliament made unpopular laws. The lack of representation for their taxes was not representation to the King, but the colonies wanted members in the British Parliament.
The American War of Independence really is an historical sideshow, and it isn't taught in schools. Conceivably it might crop up if it is specified as an optional specialist topic of study in a GCSE or A-level syllabus, as once “The Wild West” was, which, I remember, along with “The Tudors and Stuarts”, was studied by those who had opted to do GCSE History at the school I taught at around 1990.
I have always been interested by the American reference to the tyranny of King George, particularly in regard to ‘“taxation without representation”. By the time of the American revolution, taxation and pretty much all government, was the responsibility of the elected government (albeit via a limited electorate) rather than by the king, yet he gets the blame. I accept that he was the head of state however, the reality of British government even then, was far more complex. The belief of the King’s tyranny has however become ingrained, despite being a myth. Though it makes a great sound bite!!
Terms like tyrant and inalienable rights and the idea of government having to serve the people were taken from the Dutch Republic's DOI of 1581. The founding fathers were very critical of the Dutch Republic, but it was the only (semi) modern republic around and had resisted a king before and they studied it extensively. The American DOI really wasn't that new. It's when they had more time, with the constitution, that they came up with new and well thought through stuff.
The king of the Dutch, Philips II of Spain, was a real tyrant though. Spanish Inquisition, burning at the stake, slaughters of protestant or otherwise rebelling cities.
When working for an American Bank whose managers were pretty much form the USA, they had problems understanding why to the UK staff, 4th July was a complete non event. We (of course) went and partook of the special buffet lunch provided and then went back to our desks and got on with our day as normal, while avoiding the Rah Rah Rah as much as possible.
I remember being taught a little bit about the American revolution (specifically the Boston tea party), but not in great detail. I seem to remember being taught more about James Wolfe in Canada. We mainly concentrated on British & European history through the ages as it was so interlinked - we were either at war with a nation, or in an `alliance with another one! When it came to my final exam year at 16, we were taught in great depth about the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars and the industrial revolution.
By the way, hope you managed to see footage of the Coronation and Eurovision?
I think it’s important to keep in mind that the War of Independence and the Declaration can been the key focus of the origin of the USA (although that does ignore a great deal of history prior and the early history of other settlers and explorers from Asia, central and South America). Conversely, the origin of the UK does not have a key point in the same way. We grew and developed over hundreds (nay thousands of years) and did so both in conflict and collaboration with our neighbours in Europe and farther afield. The UK is rather like a piece of clay that has been moulded and remoulded numerous times by different allegiances and hence our language, culture and diet is a complex mix from all around.
Another factor in the teaching of history in UK is that we encourage students to direct and question the order of history (for example was this wife of Henry VIII really adulterous?) rather than accepting things as “fact” because that’s what the books have always told us (although some politicians definitely want to control the “facts” of history).
All of these things combined mean that the American Civil war is neither a big part of our history or a period that has a great deal to be analysed (may be the American historians should start that process and really ask who, what and why is really behind the revolution and who really were the beneficiaries (I think a lot of ordinary Americans might like to have some of the freedoms and benefits that are commonplace in most European countries.
Good point, Ethan - the 13 colonies were nothing like the US today.
yes, they were British, just like England, colonized by the British
No taxation without representation was already a fundamental premise in English law; the English Civil War had been triggered by demands by the king to raise taxes without the approval of Parliament. So in that sense, the American colonies saw themselves as being denied the same rights as had been already won in England.
But the real underlying cause of it all was the British insistence that the colonies should only producer raw materials and that manufacture should be done in England. The colonies served as a source of materials and a market for finished goods. But this obviously choked development in the colonies. The taxes being rebelled against where the ones that penalised the production of finished goods in the colonies.
While the American Revolution may not be covered in great depth in the education system in general, my own home town has it's own connection to it.
On 22nd April 1778 Whitehaven (my home town) had the dubious honour of being the site of the only American raid on British shores. Despite the destruction of a guard tower and much of the harbour front, the attack was ultimately thwarted. Far from feeling any animosity, the gentleman leading the raid, one Commander John Paul Jones is commemorated with a bust in the local library, a sculpture on the harbour and even has a pub named after him.
The siege of Gibraltar was more important than America, it received more troops and supplies. We also fighting the three major powers at the time. Spain, France and Holland.
its funny how many yanks love the british family, and yet go on and on about the war of independance,
WOW. Great that you said that. thats the 1st time ive heard an american admit they wouldnt have won without the french.
Always thought it odd that The Somerset case was won in 1772 and the American war of independence started in 1775 the link maybe was slavery
having met a number of americans it always amuses me when they say how THEY beat the British in the usa .and then you find out they are of polish or italian or some other late arrival to america descent , also that they do not now that the declaration of independence that they are so proud of is based on the English Magna Carta
In general, Brits don't get taught about the revolution apart from one or two lessons when learning about Nepolianic history as we were fighting the French, amongst others, at the same time. We don't really know much about the war of independence other than what we glean from people like yourselves.
Americans don't really know, most of them think they fought off British invaders, not they they were British colonies.
That was interesting. Little known fact about American independence was that it paved the way for the colonisation of Australia. After the revolution England had no place to send her ever growing convict population and the prisons were over crowding very quickly. The authorities were housing them on old ships called hulks in the Thames river. It was decided to send a group to Botany Bay, which was mapped along with the east coast of Australia by Lieutenant James Cook, circa 1770. The English government needed a penal colony to send their petty criminals to after they could no longer send them to their American colonies. Most notably Maryland and Virginia.
Australia got the minor criminal characters and the US got the religious nutters. Australia got the better deal.
In my day (boomer), we learned in the UK about the invaders (Celts, Romans, Saxons, Vikings, Normans), the early middle ages (Crecy, Agincourt, Calais, Aquitaine, etc.) and then, in extraordinary depth, the social and economic history of the UK 1750 - 1930. We learned nothing about the history of Europe, let alone the US - a huge gap in our learning and understanding of the world and a great shame IMO as history is the shared narrative of the nations. I have spent a lot of time since then filling in the gaps and understanding the common threads.
I had pretty much the same education and like you have spent a lot of time looking at world history, perhaps more european but it's extremely interesting just don't watch any films or don't rely on them to be accurate!
Boomer here too, but I got plenty of European history, especially the French Revolution.
@@nicolab2075 Interesting. Which exam board did you do? We did the JMB O-level.
@@expatexpat6531 So did I!! In 1979 I did the O level History, which was from the French Revolution to 1870 (Franco Prussian War)
@@nicolab2075 Aah. I beat you by a few years - I did mine in 1974. Maybe there were different options, or they changed the course. We did agriculture, canals, railways, white goods, and never got a foot closer to Europe than London.
They don't teach Brits about the Empire but once upon a time they did.
There you go again on about American freedom, what freedom would that be , is it different than the freedom we have in Europe , UK , and most parts of the world 😊
The freedom to declare bankruptcy due to medical bills?
Or the freedom for your kids to be gunned down in one of the apparently weekly school mass shootings.
The USA actually ranks quite low on the World's Most Free Countries index.
I think that in 1776 somebody forgot to tell those coloured chaps about the freedom they would be receiving after the break with the Britain!
@xanx1234 Yeah, I'm sure the USA would have a lot less mass shootings if the uk was still in charge as well
To be honest, American history is just a tiny part of the history taught in the UK.
IF it's taught at all.
I've actually learned a lot more outside school (or at least in more detail), and even now I'm still doing that..
Sorry America but your reveloution was a bilp in world history and for Brits we learn about Napolion which ihappened at the same time. It was not mentioned while i was at school at all, vikings were big in history lessons.
The Napoleonic wars 1803 - 1815. American War of Independence 1775 - 1783. Not at the same time at all. You must have been at the bottom of your class 😂
@@kirsteneasdale5707 right love a lot more went on due to cleaning up, we didnt have it all sorted in that time.
Despite some economic implications. Historically, politically, socially, it is a footnote in British history!
I wonder how many Americans are aware of the role the British and particularly The Royal Navy played in the global struggle to abolish slavery in the nineteenth century?
In 1776 while the 13 colonies were becoming an independent country, the UK began running a horse race, the St Leger, which is still run annually. In the UK other more important historical events are taught, these being events like 1066 (Battle of Hastings), 1215 (Magna Carta), 1666 (Great fire of London) and 1966
I was eleven in 1966. What happened then?
@@Joanna-il2ur The important historical event in 1966 was your 11th birthday. Something else happened in England in 1966 which us English don't really like to talk about (much)
Short anaswer they didn't when i was at school.
Same. All I know about it is from TV dramas but even then it tends to be the American Civil War and nothing really about the revolution.
I studied history for GCSE and A Level and the only thing I learnt relating to the USA was the civil rights movement in the 60's and USA's role in WW2.
The American revolution was just a footnote in my history class too. We was taught about the 7 years war, which lead into the American war for independence, which lead into the French Revolution
If it wasnt for France losing the 7 years war, assisting the States with their independence and getting nothing in return during their revolution, the Nepolionic wars would have never happened
Biggest irony : royalist France went virtually bankrupt assisting the 13 Colonies to become a republic;leading to mass inflation,socio-economic and political instability,riots,etc,which then led to the toppling of their own monarchy and the brief but bloody (pre-Napoleonic) French republic ! 😐
It's worth remembering that the British kept hold of the upper half of North America for another 150 years, and the King is still head of state there, although Canada is an independent country now. So essentially Britain lost a thin strip of land down about half the east coast. Britain is not responsible for all the territory the 13 colonies gained subsequently. None of our business.
American history… what history? lol
The puritans were religious talaban like fanatics, they left as the bulk of the British didn't want to live without music, theatre, dancing, CHRISTMAS, wearing nice clothes and colours. They actually got into power here after we chopped off the kings head, then eventually we brought the monarchy back with golden handcuffs, so when the American revolution took place the king didn't have much power, but we had more fun because of him taking the lead in society! LOL
1776 there were only 13 states. The majority of North America was under the control of French, Spanish, and native Americans.
I was taught about it when I was at school in the 1960s and 1970s.
For my school's HISTORY O LEVEL we did The History of the British Empire and a part of this was, of course, The American War of Independence. And we studied it in some detail: The battles, the generals, life at the time on both sides of the conflict, consequences, etc. This included "the shot heard around the world', Bunker Hill in Boston, Saratoga Springs in NY and Yorktown. We also looked and analysed documents circulating at the time in order to support the history, e.g. revolutionary pamphlets, parliamentary speeches, punishments and those punished, etc. The course also included our struggles against the French in the USA and in Canada, India, Australia and New Zealand and South Africa. The O LEVELS (Ordinary) used to represent our first choices in our education (ages 14-16) and not all classes study the same subjects. Following these, for the academically minded, are the A Levels (Advanced Levels) where specialization is very prevalent and most pupils study 3-4 subjects at this level prior to Uni. I, for example limited my studies to FRENCH, GEOGRAPHY, LATIN and GENERAL STUDIES.
I’ve been teaching U.S. History for 18 years. The American colonies were established by a series of groups, for a variety of reasons. They were left unattended, free to do as they wished, with no taxes and no regulations. A freer - civilized - people never existed. This unofficial policy has been called “salutary neglect”. NEGLECT. Individual colonists were free to own as much land as they wished. Land prices were dirt cheap compared to Europe. They were free to make as much money as they could - tax free - and they were free to enslave human beings in order to do so. This is a very good example of a people enjoying - literally - TOO much freedom.
That Americans say “we were living under tyranny” is evidence that Americans prefer to view themselves as victims.
Not only were they the freest people in the history of the world, but they established governments based on the democratic Republican government of Parliament - minus the whole Royal sovereign thing. In other words : we did not set up a king, but we DID have elections.
In addition to all of this, Americans enjoyed the protection of the greatest Army and Navy the world had ever seen, without having to pay one single Shilling in exchange. Free.
This played out during The 7 Years War - which was truly the worlds First World War. A global catastrophe that the Colonists neatly avoided, and, in fact, greatly benefitted from more so than anyone else on Earth.
Americans were already free. By 1776, Great Britain had made a few feeble attempts at getting the fully adult teenager to go back to being a depended child, but it was too late.
I note he correctly points out that we don't call it a revolution, we call it The American War of Independence, because it wasn't a revolution. I think that title is just part of the propaganda of the time, that's where all the talk of tyranny and taxes came from, taxes were at about 1 to 1.5%, a fifth of what they were in Britain. The cause was resentment among the American elite that they were subject to Crown appointed governors, they just thought it would be better if they ran things themselves. Once they were doing that, far from having a revolution they kept tye state governing structure (you still have governors for goodness sake, that's a colonial title). They then created an imitation of the UK system of two houses and an elected king, whose powers were similar to those of George III. Its probably the fact that it wasn't a proper revolution that made it work, look at the French and the Russians.
Puritans wanted more intolerance (or at least a different form of intolerance) so left on the Mayflour and Seedwell from Southampton. The speedwell took on water so they had to put into port at Plymouth to switch to one ship. Next key event would be the Boston Tea Party and Paul Revere’s famous ride then it all kicked right off!
Coincidentally I just heard my daughter ask what thanksgiving is, his answer was ‘the native Americans saved the starving settlers, so the settlers part d them back by killing them with small pox.”
Oversimplified, but not wrong.
American independence was inevitable, considering the amount of wealth that the country has in abundance.
Colonists “Americans” needed to glorify in their identity of independence, otherwise it would never have worked out with all the other warring countries that would be forever wanting to have just more than a piece of the apple pie.
The thirteen colonies were obviously British, so you might even call it a civil war and the home countries mentioned have been at loggerheads for centuries. Just a footnote in British History? Well we soon became staunch allies pretty soon after the dust settled, with the Canada war against USA aggression fitting in between. So the new world couldn’t detach itself completely from it’s origins, hence the thirteen red and white stripes still representing the British colonial founding fathers.
That’s how I see it, if I’m wrong,? I don’t think I will lose much sleep over it 🤔
The people that left England to make America were actually against the king due to the fact they thought Catholicism was too frivolous , and wanted to go practice their own form of Christianity freely and saw America as the best place to do so, as the natives wouldn't fight conversion.
I could be wrong but I don't think Simon writes his own scripts , he just presents someone else's work. I've seen him flip on screen and cry out " How do you expect me to read this stuff? " which doesn't sound like he actually wrote it.
His voice and histrionic style annoy me.
My experience of talking with American friends makes me wonder if the US history curriculum is still politically focused on welding their nation state together rather than providing historical breadth and context. The British Civil Wars of the mid seventeenth century and the Glorious Revelution of 1688 should be given some time in US schools, the American Revolutionary War didn't just spring from nowhere. Another fallacy which the US schools history curriculum seems to perpetuate is the power of the British Monarchy, by 1770 the influence of the King was nowhere near as great as many Americans think.