As an American, I've never seen the War of 1812 described as an American victory even when I was in elementary school. At lower levels what's taught is basically that it was a strange war with no victor, the national anthem came from it, Washington burned, Dolley Madison saved Washington's portrait, and Andrew Jackson won the Battle of New Orleans after the war was over.
As an American, it was taught as an American victory, and cemented America's independence when I was in school. In high School it was given some more nuance, but it was still treated as a victory overall.
The goal of the invasion for the British was to conquer the US, but they couldn't and gave up. The goal for the US was to not be conquered and to remain independent. Sounds like the US won to me.
in the US, the War of 1812 is actually usually taught as a pretty needless war that ended in a draw but taught with pride that we still fought back against a superior power while still in our infancy. But not taught as a win by any means.
Canadians are told US President Madison attacked the Canadas (the colonies of Upper Canada and Lower Canada) because he saw an opportunity to annex them. Since Britain was preoccupied with fighting Napooeon in Europe and wouldn't be able to send troops to reinforce the Canadas, he used the pressing of US sailors into the Royal Navy as a pretext to invade. The war of 1812 ended when Napoleon was defeated which freed large numbers of British troops to serve in North America. An advance contingent of British troops landed south of Washington, completely defeated the Americans at the Battle of Bladensburg (which was the worst defeat ever inflicted on the US army in it's entire history, and one which Americans are never taught about in school), and continued their march around the Chesapeake toward their winter quarters where they'd wait for the rest of the British Army to arrive in the spring. On their way, they torched some public buildings in Washington and shot up Baltimore in what was essentially a drive-by. Madison and the US government was panic stricken at the prospect of facing the professional British Army, and not some undermanned colonial troops from Canada, and agreed to peace. Britain agreed to restoring the pre-war status quo because they had bills to pay after fighting Napoeon since 1803. So both sides made some face-saving boasts and went back to living their lives. If you want to hear a Canadian take on this, listen to "The War of 1812" song by The Arrogant Worms. It's hilarious!
@@DaveGIS123 the Canadian invasion stuff, all true. Madison and his friends felt a bit too cocky. At that time, the US military was still more of a bunch of militias, so we never really stood a chance in a fair fight. But this idea Americans treat it as a victory of sorts is just silly. I'm just glad times have changed and our alliances have been strengthened so well. Sure there is political rhetoric back and forth but I'm always happy our maple syrup loving little war criminals up north are on our side 🤣 Canada does not get enough respect for their military endeavors, especially during WW2.
United States: We took on the British Empire, and we didn't lose! Canada: We took on the United States, and we didn't lose! Britain: Ah yes, 1812, jolly spiffing time with that Napoleon frog chap…
Except the Brits lost to Napoleon decisively until Waterloo. And, arguably, they would've lost there too except that Napoleon had hemorrhoids and couldn't ride his horse to rally his troops like he'd done to great effect in previous battles.
United States: in 1814 we took a little trip down to the mighty Mississippi we took a little bacon and we took a little beans and we caught the bloody British in the town of New Orleans.
I started school in Canada, and finished in America. I was blown away with how different the emphasis on 1812 was, especially how they completely ignore the fact they DID want to annex Canada. It was also fun in class talking about the American Revolution. The teachers would say "You're ancestors fought to make this country", but like, my family were British Officers.
@@cosmicsquid That's just being pedantic. Yes America is the name of the continent, but its pretty clear from context that they are referring to the USA (which is also called America in common usage). Not sure where you're from, as it might be different there, but its pretty common to refer to the US as America, and the continent as North America/South America. Also America is a geographical continent, but not a geopolitical one, so it would be disingenuous to say American in the same way as European for example, in the same way that we don't generally refer to people from East Russia as Asian.
@@matthewstarkie4254 "Who is we?" People from the 44 European countries are Europeans just like people from the 36 America countries are Americans. No one country in Europe has the distinction of being described by many as the only European country the way the United States is in America. Simply the word "America" is an abused misnomer used by many that have no clue about American history and geography. Thanks
@@cosmicsquid "we" is a general we, as I don't think anyone refers to people from East Russia as Asian (though I could be wrong), and doing so would generally be considered confusing. Just like referring to Canadians as American would be confusing, and even using the term European is potentially confusing as it could referring to either the EU or the continent. No one is saying people from other countries on the continent can't call themselves American, but it was pretty clear from context that the OP was referring to the country, not the continent, and telling a Canadian that they should refer to themselves as American is not really your call (unless you are Canadian), especially as it would be so easy to misunderstand.
I recall having a Japanese student on exchange in the uk in the 90s. It was the first time I realised they don’t learn much at all about the war. We were studying it in history and she had never heard of Japan being involved at all. She had some hard lessons that year I think. She was lovely though
Same, here in Australia. My parents were renovating our house and stripping off layers of newspaper that had been used as wallpaper in one room, and the news was all about various events of WWII as seen in the Pacific. Our Japanese exchange student had absolutely no idea of her country's real involvement in the war.
That one is REALLY hard to swallow MILLIONS OF JAPANESE citizens were killed by us the americans. AND IT WAS THE FIRST TIME GENOCIDE WAS COMMITTED WITH ATOMIC BOMBS. That is pretty hard to hide, even for the USA.
If I remember correctly, the war of 1812 was taught in my school as a stalemate, but that a stalemate for the fledgling United States was a victory because it reaffirmed independence and brought us away from being seen as under the British umbrella for good. A situation where you don't have to win, you just can't lose.
That’s what I was taught in school. Louisiana might’ve put a bit more emphasis on it due to the Battle of New Orleans. Although I remember having to write a book report about it for my fifth grade history class.
@@coltonwilliams4153 Lol I am from Baltimore, Maryland, so we also probably put more emphasis on it since the battle of Baltimore and the fort that defended the capital was there. We even had field trips to Fort McHenry, which is where the star spangled banner takes place.
Defining wins and losses in wars can be rather complicated if the result is anything either than either an unconditional withdrawal or complete capitulation. The US' Vietnam conflict could be interpreted as a success as the US was there as a result of the domino theory that if they lost Vietnam, that other countries would follow. And that really didn't happen. OTOH, the US lost a lot of service personnel and didn't get to keep any of the land, hence why it's more typically considered to be a loss.
@@SmallSpoonBrigade Considering failures to hold onto land like Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc. It makes it sound ridiculous when those from other countries (usually Europeans) calls the U.S an empire/imperialistic. How often in history did imperialists pay to rebuild countries while letting them keep control? The U.S paid to rebuild Europe, Russia, China, AND Japan after WW2. Seems pretty bad at empire-building. Just comes off as actual imperialists trying to be like "look over there! they're the imperialist ones! just forget about all the colonialism we did...."
My wife, who is Belorussian, was taught that the atomic bomb was a pre emptive strike by the west, and that is why you should be afraid of them. ‘If they did it to Japan, they could do it to us’. She had no knowledge of pearl harbour or the atrocities committed against allied soldiers and civilians.
They must have some pretty insane online censorship to be able to get away with that. If they are taught that it explains a lot about why things don’t change there.
Eight years ago many people in the US were part of a movement called Q-Anon and they believed Satan worshipping child molesters were running the country. A sample size of one from a flock of idiots could give you very misleading results.
Another good example is Ireland. Ireland’s struggle for freedom and away from British colonialism is huge in Irish schools but I have met British people who still think Ireland is part of the UK and have no idea of the history of Ireland, its nearest neighbour and Britain’s role in it.
True. There are so many levels to this. For instance many people in Ireland have completely forgotten the roles Irish people played in the wider Empire such as in the slave trade.
@@owenjones1328 Unfortunately true, and you can find it in other countries. Films like The Nightingale present Ireland's role in the Empire as strictly that of a victim, when in reality it was a lot more nuanced. About a quarter of the British Army was Irish at one point, and many of the officers were Irish protestants, as were many senior imperial administrators. Of course, this wouldn't make for comfortable reading for the Irish, so it tends to get papered over.
@@biggiouschinnus7489 yep a large part of the British army especially during the napoleonic/ peninsula wars was Irish, even the Duke of Wellington was Irish .
I know plenty of Americans who think the same (of course many think my state is part of Canada, so we're not exactly top tier lol) That's why many of my history papers where I got to choose a topic were about Ireland's long struggle for independence Also, a friend told me yesterday that she JUST learned that Scotland is part of Great Britain... She had no idea it was "attached to England" 🤦🏼
Knew a guy in the Air Force who grew up in Japan and went to Japanese schools until High School. He was telling us in the 90's his history class basically spent a few weeks on the Meiji Revolution, another week going up to the late twenties, then it was basically "World War II started, the US dropped A-bombs on us, and on to the recovery." Apparently, when he asked his teacher about Pearl Harbor they said that was only discussed in college history classes.
@@Plaprad not with school. With school once at around 16. But we have golden stones where the nazis hijacked the jewish population with their names. In every city. And they are studied, stones and people
I studied in a Russian school. We weren't taught that Japan surrendered because of the Soviets, but we did learn about the Soviet-Japanese war, which wasn't resolved until September 1945.
@@marcbeebee6969 Russian drivers, bro. lol People that were basically restricted from travel and owning vehicles since the invention of the automobile were suddenly unleashed behind the wheel. ROFL
@@nathanowen1328we just skim over it really quick so it’s just a bunch of dates and nothing more because there’s too much focus on the middle ages and the romanovs (i graduated in 2018 but i doubt much has changed apart from the propaganda they added to the curriculum)
Oh Simon, you’ve fallen into the trap. The Delacroix painting ‘Liberty leading the People’ does not refer to THE French Revolution, but to A French Revolution (the one in July 1830). They had several, leading to the expression ‘the French are revolting.’
Simon has been very clear on his other channels, others write the script (Kevin in this case), others edit the video (Jennifer), he reads the script, pays the authors and editors, uploads the final product, keeps up the website, sends out merch, and handles all the business side of things.
The burning of the white house is a big aspect of the war of 1812 in American schools because it’s paired with the fact that the First Lady Dolly Madison was able to save the portrait of George Washington which is considered very patriotic. It’s probably one of the few facts about the war I still remember. 5:15
One lesser known fact was that they had to evacuate the White House shortly before as dinner was being served, so when the British arrived to ransack the White House and evidently birded it to the ground, they found dinner had already been set out on the table. So they decided to enjoy a good meal before burning the White House. Then again we also burned Toronto to the ground as well when we invaded Canada.
A more interesting fact they should teach is that after the British occupied Washington a hurricane hit and forced them back out with wind rain and a large tornado. Definitely crazy timing.
Guys, it's not worth fighting another war of 1812 about... Math and maths are both valid abbreviations of mathematics. Just like color and colour, or meter and metre, or practice and practise, or aeon or eon, or airplane or aeroplane. The war of 1812 was really fought because of Aluminum vs Aluminium, but we were both wrong, it was originally Alumium.
@@teddypicker8799 With one exception. The commandant of the Marine Corps house was spared, out of respect for the actions of the US Marines defending the capitol.
I'm american and I've never seen the war of 1812 as an american victory. The US capital was burned to the ground, the US army lost most of its battles. The navy had a few one on one victories but was horribly outmatched, and math is a noun describing the whole of mathematics and doesn't need a multiplier to define it.
Actually, the US Navy was the one part of America that could claim victory in that war. The American Navy was horribly outmatched for sure. But better ships and better commanders gave them victory regardless. The US Navy was truly born in the War of 1812.
It’s funny that you defend math being singular and then immediately say “mathematics”. Math and maths are just two different wats to shorten mathematics.
@@projectblack2462 The US was enslaving Africans in great numbers. Key was an anti-abolitionist slave owner from Maryland which was about 30% slave in 1814. His hypocritical song was not for the slaves. The British were welcoming escaped slaves on to their ships.
As an American, I can say that the general consensus is that we're proud of the revolution, but it's water under the bridge. We don't have any animosity against the British nation and none of us judge any of you for the policies of George III. We consider the British to be brothers and very similar to ourselves.
When I was at school, it was really considered English vs English albeit English colonists, many of whom had strong English accents and cultural habits.
I think most people don't understand the abuses the British inflicted on the colonists back then. People just think it was about high taxes. And in that regard it wasn't tax rate, it was the lack of representation for those taxes. Something that was supposed to be our right as citizens of the empire.
Fun fact about the War of 1812. Americans invaded Toronto, then called York, and took a bunch of books from the library. A year later, the Americans again invaded York, and returned the books they borrowed from the library!
They didn't lose control of the US, nor did they stop collecting tax money from people in the US. The lie is much greater than most people realize. Find out why the corporation called "the UNITED STATES of AMERICA" was founded in 1871,,, the trail leads back to the lie.
@SEAZNDragon bro we had an empire that covered 1/4 of the world's landmass. Every 6 days some country somewhere celebrates their independence from us. Combine that with how long the history of the UK is and it just isn't a big deal for Brits. When we look at the British Empire we look at the transatlantic slave trade and the British Raj and exploration. The American War of Independence is just unimportant to us
I'm Canadian and I don't recall spending all that much time on the war of 1812. The only thing that comes to mind is the snickering we all did when we learned the white house had been burned down.
It's not taught much in America either. We tend to forget Canada was involved as a separate entity at all. Here is what I was taught: The White House is still blackened under the paint from the fire. The Star Spangled Banner is about a battle in the war. I believe England was mentioned.
As a Canadian I've tried to learn about the War of 1812 and everything I read I instantly forget because it's just so not relevant to anything. Like everything you could ever possibly need to know about the war can be written down on a pamphlet, I"m pretty sure 7th grade me could write more on the topic than adult me.The 7 years war/french and indian war is far far far more relevant to Canadians and far far far more interesting. It was basically world war zero, a global war, a war fought all across Canada and had direct consequences of Canada being formed.
@katethomas1519 The 7 Years War is more relevant to Americans too, and we merely a proxy in said war, versus an actual main combatant in The War of 1812. Much of our elite troops, leaders, and strategies used on the Revolutionary War came from it. While the French were the deciding factor, they never would have helped if we didn't stand a chance.
It's probably me, but the narration of many of the newer videos I've seen have really sped up. I find myself needing to closed caption, which in itself is almost a practice in speed reading. But I really enjoy this channel, so it's worth it.
@@brylawOr check to make sure you didn't accidentally set it to 1.25x or 1.5x. It's super annoying that when you change the speed for one video, YT remembers the change for all subsequent videos, even from different channels :(
Great Video! One thing that I find interesting though is that None of the Perspectives being taught are complete. And all of them contain a piece of the overall picture of what had happened. It makes it definitely worth looking at all of the stories to get a better and closer understanding of the Truth of all of those Events.
@@Ramschat Not too dissimilarly to Allied textbooks glossing over the Fire bombing of Dresden and Tokyo. Ie. We don't spend much time on our war crimes - why should they?
@@MrBrock314 They don't skim their war crimes, in Japan, they skim the whole war. A least in the UK (not sure about the other allies), they do cover the bad events, as well as the good events of the war. You also omitted the Firebombing of the UK by Germany during WWII. For example, the small city of Coventry, had over 30,000 incendiary bombs dropped on it, alone.
13:37 it's easy to forget that 9/11 happened over 20, not 10 years ago. it's quite unbelievable, to be honest, especially coming from someone born less than 4 four months after it happened.
Back in the 2000s, a document was found in the archives of the Japanese government where they talked about the possibility of being divided into North and South Japan, much like East and West Germany. They decided to surrender rather than let that happen. As for the schools teaching about WWII in Japan, it was unfortunately true while I taught there. Recently while teaching at a medical university in Japan, during a class on medical ethics, we discussed how the ethics developed from the atrocities in WWII, including those by Unit 731. They had no idea.
That doesn't make sense. Japan surrendered long before Germany was split into East and West in 1949, so how could the Japanese government have known about this in August of 1945?
@@quokkaw Germany was divided into four occupation zones before those occupations formalised into two sovereign states in 1949. It wouldn't be out of the question to assume Japan would be split the same way.
@@quokkaw Japan knew the USSR and knew that once the USSR took territory, they wouldn't give it back. As it was, the USSR was only able to take the 4 Kuril islands, which they still hold to this day.
Well done. From a guy who majored in history as well as professional educator for well over three decades. POV does color the teaching of history. Balance is important in portraying events accurately without shying from the more horrific events some country's leadership have perpetuated. We can only learn how not to repeat some of those dreadful mistakes when we thoughtfully examine past moments: both good and bad.
The best example of this in my mind is how the Glorious Revolution is taught in the UK and the Netherlands. To this day we’re taught the last successful invasion of England was 1066 and nobody has heard of 1688.
And when they admit it was an invasion they claim the initiative for the English. The invention by 7 rather powerless lords, come over to become king, you need to bring a fleet twice the size of the Armada and 40.000 soldiers though. But Dutch parliament had already decided on the invasion an paid for the fleet and army, their oppointed stadtholder Willem III van Oranje feared to much opposition as a foreigner and demanded to be invited as one of many propaganda efforts. The biggest political change in British history was a Dutch invasion for French reasons I'm afraid. Not that I learned that in Dutch schools, with the orange marches during the troubles in NI it was mostly ignored.
British colonies too learn about 1066 & the Magna Carta etc but nothing of the Dutch (at least thats' how it is in Australia & I assume the other colonies too)
@@mehere8038nothing about the Dutch or any other country. 😀 However 1688 should be in the British books because the Dutch invaded and put one of theirs on the English throne.
@@mehere8038 The British have a habit of appropriating other's history anyway, especially the good parts of course. Somehow everything magically originated with that very special people. But in the 17th century was rather backward, especially compared to the Dutch Republic.
Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcast had a great line about history that's taught in any school in any country. They should all be called "Here's why we're great and why everyone else sucks."
@@Rubicola174 That's intense! In America it depends on what state you live in and what teacher you have when it comes to the American Civil War as it relates to slavery. Props to Germany for keeping it real!
Listen, here in America. . . (Silenced) Haha😂 Juuuuuust kidding! Naw, it's just that people from other countries aren't the only ones that were withheld correct, acurate, and true American history. Americans have been deprived of even their own knowledge of the very truth of the GENOCIDAL and barbaric "foundation" of the place we live today from the jump! We also never learned about China's devastating "Great leap forward" holocaust. Some b.s. truly how the gov. "refrains" from transparency and conveniently "complicates" things. Manipulation is a form of abuse. Lying and being omissive has never been trusted and those 10%ers greedy b.s. is all falling out of their fat ass cracks hahaha
We also learn in France that the Russian invasion of Manchuria was a very important factor in the Japanese surrender. Keep in mind that one night of bombing in Tokyo killed 100.000 people in one night. The US had been bombing cities to the ground for over 6 months with huge casualties and damage without any sign that Japan wanted to surrender (just like Germany didn't). But when the USSR came to their doorstep, the Japanese basically had to chose between surrendering to the US or being carved up between two nations like Germany was.
We have the communications between the emperor and his generals and advisors. We know what brought them to that decision. Ignoring that is ignoring the primary sources and is just historical revisionism.
There is a good video on this topic by youtuber Shaun. He goes through the documents and personal diaries of US civilian and military leaders (almost all unanimously writing that the Atomic bomb was unnecessary) and the documents and proceedings of Japanese officials in regards to the USSR. Though I don't fully agree the atomic bombing played absolutely no part in it (it certainly did) but not to an extent. The Soviet invasion was far far more consequently for the Japanese leadership. At then end both played the role in getting them to surrender to the Americans (important note Americans) cause the alternate was worse (Though Soviets could not invade Hokkaido or Japanese main islands even the Soviet leadership knew this due to their experience in fighting for the Kurils which required months of US war aid such as Ships to do and was almost a bloody disaster). Yet the Japanese leadership didn't know that they feared a Soviet march to Tokyo ending with the Emperor and royal family getting the Romanov treatment. So both events played an important role (The destruction of Kuwatang Army and Machuko was a death blow to Japan in Asia). Although you could argue on how much the one or the other contributed.@@JayMuzquiz
This is the prevailing understanding as well in the US, at least at the college level. I have no idea if US high schools are still teaching that Japan surrendered because of the bomb, but they probably are. However, it was a ridiculous statement by Simon to say that Japan's surrender was due to the Soviet Army is a minority opinion. It is the standard opinion among historians and academics.
@@captbloodbeard Simon is known for reading off the script and being Westcentric in all his approachs to many topics. I happened to have this recommended knowing Japanese topic would be here. Alot of Westcentric approach to history.
Hence the importance given to a constitutional amendment making sure every citizen has a firearm so they can defend their country in case the English decide to invade again. Which is a very plausible thing to be so scared about, I'm sure.
@@tealkerberus748 No, the firearms plus the "organized militias" business was much more about keeping down slave rebellions. They were known to happen every once in a while, including in Haiti just a few months before that Amendment was added.
Thank you, this drove me insane as well. I make it a habit of taking care to pronounce things as the natives would, regardless of how my own pronunciation might be. Simon, it should be pronounced "New Orleens" or "New Orlins" or "Newawlins". lol Not "AOURLEEEEON" ROFL
The Battle of Orleans. Ahh yes, I too remember Andrew Jackson on the Beach of Normandy, gallantly dueling every person ally or enemy alike, and taking on Orleans single handedly on his way to Paris. What a guy.
I'm Austrian and my history teacher was OBSESSED with WW2. We spent 4 years learning about not much else other than what happened during WW2 in Austria. When I asked why the Japanese sided with the Nazis, he couldn't even give me an answer. He also made us watch a really horrifying documentary with real footage from a concentration camp that definitely wasn't suitable for anybody under 18. We were like 16 or 17 at the time. It was all extremely detailed and I was bored of it pretty soon, especially since we also discussed the topic in other subjects. The only time we were really taught anything about other countries was when we learned about Ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome and then briefly the French revolution. Oh yeah and we had like 2 lessons about what happened after WW2 in the entire world. So yeah, not a very rounded education overall.
That would be because Germans/Austrians are still wracked with guilt. This is the reason that they have been "forgiven" in Europe, unlike the Japanese who are still hated in the east , as they deny anything happened.
@kevinshort3943 Japan doesn't deny anything already apologized and payed reparations which was a peace condition as in the SF treaty, not making self flagellation their religion is no excuse for lying
I'm Australian, I find it curious you have the same history teacher for 4 years. We change teachers every year, largely so as to avoid any potential for issues if we get a bad teacher in a particular subject - that was my experience anyway, I guess it's possible kids here at smaller schools could have different experiences
@@longiusaescius2537 A once off thing beyond mosts living memory is not the same as being truly sorry. They gloss over or ignore most of it in their history books, pretending it never happened. You know what they say about those that forget their history are doomed to make the same mistakes again.
I remember when one of my college professors told us how she went to Japan and she was in this WWII museum. When she got to the atomic bomb she felt guilty but the tour guide said “We deserved it for our actions.”
Japanese textbooks these days are much more clear about Japan's role in the war and what's portrayed in this video is not at all what's being taught and do talk to Japan's instigation and its war crimes.
I will say as an American the French Revolution IS more consequential historically than the American. Yes, in the long run the Rise of American Economics and Imperialsm defines the modern world, but for most of the 18th and 19th centuries the Fallout of the French Revolution and Napoleanic Wars would have global effects and directly lead to most of the problems that would result in both World Wars.
The thing about the French Revolution is that it was directly affected by the American Revolution. The American Revolution brought the idea of liberty and freedom out of simply scholars and into the general public. It also gave a president that these ideas can be fought and won as the American were undoubtedly the underdogs in their fight. And look past psychology, the economic bankruptcy that cause the French Revolution was due to France’s involvement in the American Revolution. The American Revolution may not have affected the way the revolution turned out, but it definitely played a huge part in causing it. It’s worth noting that two of the men who wrote the French Declaration of Independence was Thomas Jefferson (the man who wrote the American Decloration of Independence) Marque de Lafayette who was a major American general who was French. Perhaps the French Revolution is more well known outside the Americas as I am an American, but I do know that the American revolution directly influenced and inspired the French Revolution, the Haitian Revolution and all the Latin American Revolutions. Another fun fact is that the original North Vietnam Declaration of independence makes direct reference to the American Declaration of Independence.
@@cat5lover862 sure everything exists in the context of what came before. The question is which events merit much more than a setting the stage paragraph when teaching history in a limited amount of time. I know that when I was growing up France’s involvement in the American Revolution besides spending lots of money was downplayed in significance. And maybe it is okay to ignore the other fronts the British were fighting on at the same time in the way we do. I think the fact that they were fighting in other places in the world and against other countries was a single sentence when I was taught it. If you look at the 9/11 example events at the time and more now the build up to the attacks is not often taught to Americans. I knew it because my family taught me but almost all my peers and the prevailing national narrative at the time and since was boiled down to “because they hate freedom”. The fallout from the patriot act and the misleading of the people into support of the Iraq war was largely unspoken of and still probably is. We still tend to speak of it without the context of bombing civilians and disappearing people into torture prisons. The US tends to teach its history very nationalistically. If you go to school in Texas then Mexico becomes the villains in their origin story. Rather than Americans continuing our habit of expansion by settlement, justifying protecting those settlers, then annexation of the land and removal of the non Americans living there.
@@LC-sc3en I with start this by saying that I grew up with Pennsylvania education system. Not that overall important but the revolution and the civil war were local history to my area. I agree that context matters. That’s why when learning about the American Revolution you start with the English Civil War, then to the era of Columbus and the Dutch and Swedish Traders and the Native Americans, then to the British colonies, then to the French And Indian War( the 7 years war for those outside America though the French and Indian war was the North American front, it was the reason the war happened and was started 2 years prior to the 7 years war lasting 9 years. It was started by English colonialists. A very Famous person named George Washington fought in some of the early battles.) Only by learning all of this, can you truly understand why Locke and Common Sense were so popular in America and where the phrase “taxation without representation” comes from. They were inciting English law that they believed was garented to them by the colonies founding documents. Yes Frace played a part in the American Revolution, but you must remember that the alliance was only signed in 1778 which is 3 years after the war started and only 3 years before it ends in terms of major battles. I don’t claim that the French didn’t help, but in the early years it was Americans who won at Sarotoga and Trenton. As in the famous crossing of the Delaware Trenton. And just so we are on the same page, I am currently doing a reaserch paper on Valley Forge for college right now so the research is fresh in my memory. Also, the fact on the British fighting multiple fronts during the war and so could not contribute much troops to the war is a blatant lie and misconceptions. The fronts you are refering to are the French, Dutch and Spanish. As stated before, the French joined the revolution in 1778 and actively participated on the American front like at Yorktown. The biggest asset the French brought was there navy as America had privateers not a navy. I don’t argue that, though if you want to look at interesting American Revolution navy stories look up John Paul Jones or the Turtle (an actual early Submarine). Moving on to Spain, the Spanish joined the war after the French and open up a front along the west but this was already after the Americans have taking back Philly and the British honestly lost their chance of winning the war. Yes by 1778 the British were losing, not battles but the overall war of minds and morale. And finally the Dutch, who only participated in a trade war over the right to American trade. While this may have affected the British in the later part of the war, honestly it is simply not as instrumental as people make it out to be. All of these wars were concluded by the Treaty of Paris of 1783, as in the treaty that ended the American Revolution. Yes there are exasperations on the American Perspective of the war. But that’s to be expected with an underdog story such as the Americans in it because they were the underdogs. They should not have won in the eyes of the British at that time. It’s no wonder that 3 times the head British general either resigned or got replaced in the Americas as their performance was considered back home as underwhelming. I think that all countries teach their history nationalistic, America is not the exception. But that doesn’t mean that the bad parts aren’t taught. I was lucky to have amazing history teachers. And they made sure to go over the bad stuff just like the good stuff. We learned about the trail of tears, the way the US government would break treaties with the Native tribes. I had a play in 7th grade where we compared Pocahontas’ real story to the Disney story. That was part of our ciriculam in 7th and 8th grade. We learned about resident schools which are absolutely terrible for Indians. The motto was “take the Indian out of the man”. For my personal education, we went over the bad stuff America did which isn’t something that every country does. The ones I can directly point to are Japan and China. This the entire point the video is making. I can’t speak for Texas as I don’t live in Texas nor experienced their education. Maybe it’s different there. I also don’t feel qualified to talk about 9/11. I don’t necessarily disagree on you on that, the only thing I would point out is that 9/11 is recent history. That comes with a lot more complications as the people teaching it are people who have experienced it and the effects of it. That’s honestly a different topic, that you’re not wrong about. Moving back to the American Revolution I think the thing is that you can’t directly compare events, both the American and French Revolution had impacts. The world would definitely be different without either one. But both taking both in account you can see where the age of revolutions begins and what it starts to lead into. Maybe the ‘age of revolution’ isn’t a true age in historians, especially since I’m not claiming to be one, I studying to be a meteorologist, history is a hobby and passion for me. But I think it’s important to study both of them. If you want a good book on Valley Forge that tries to disprove myths about it but not out of its way, take a look at “the Valley Forge Winter” by Wayne Bodle. It’s an interesting read and I’m finding it very helpful for my paper. Please ignore my spelling as I am typing this on phone.
Yes, the fallout had greater global effects, but that's because the French took so many tries to get it right. I guess it's arguable, but which is more important, a singular successful revolution that has stood the test of time and inspired many others? Or a bunch of ultimately failed revolutions that kept causing nasty wars until France finally settled down...only to wind up in the middle of a couple of World Wars?
Canadian-French here. We barely talked about the war of 1812. To put it directly, it was a war between two foreign nations from our point of view and we are taught that our ancestors didn’t care much about it.
You just described yourself as having French heritage, as well as Canadian. The cause of the war was ultimately the fault of the megalomaniac Napoleon, who ultimately lost. Maybe that is why you are not taught about it, as in my experience Bonaparte is adored as a hero by many of you Frenchie lot.
@@Simonsvidsus French Canadians aren't taught much about Napoleon because guess what: he wasn't our leader, and had very little to do with Canada. Also grouping up French-Canadians with French people is as misguided as grouping up Americans with English people, just because they speak the same language that doesn't make them the same nationality or same (albeit similar) culture.
@@Jezus42 Wrong. The US during the napoleonic war era fought its own conflicts against both revolutionary france AND the UK(Both over interception of our merchant ships and impressment of our sailors). There was no 'proxy' involved, as the US wasn't friendly towards or receiving significant aid from either side.
There were multiple theaters to the War of 1812. American snuck attack Canada (a colony in the British Empire at the time) assuming the British were busy with Napoleon. They were right for the most part but got their asses handed to them anyway by the locals.
@paddington1670 good on Canada. I'm British, so my comment was more because our history classes for that year are much more focused on Napoleon than the American world. But always good to hear about Canadian success.
From what I’ve gathered, the British Empire was trying to fight off Napoleon taking over Europe, HOWEVER they bullied American sea vessels, kidnapped the sailors and declared they were fighting for the British. Parliament was trying to fix the situation but by then it was too late as while there was a mix support of war in the American congress, it was enough to say it was a declaration of war and tried to convince the Canadians to join. The Canadians refused, the Americans burned down their towns and fortresses, in retaliation the British sent some officers to aid the Canadians that together match down the New England region taking over Washington and burning the city. They tried to continue this force further in the US, but they kept getting retaliation, either rebuffed their forces (Fort McHenry) or deal with defeats from certain battles like the Battle of New Orleans. Honestly it was a back and forth wins and loses on both sides that finally the British Parliament and the Americans were able to settle to back out and return the lands to their original civilizations. The Americans worked on rebuilding the country and heading west, and the British focused more at the matters of Napoleon taking over Europe and Africa. Canada meanwhile enshrines the whole event as if it is a culture foundation to brag about.
Speaking as a history student, I already know that decades before the era of burdensome taxes by the British upon the American colonies 0:24; we learned that following that it wasn’t just America that was seeing raised taxes on even imported goods. Much of the European empire had begun to feel the sting of these new taxes in the fallout of the seven years war. A war that the European nation borrowed heavily from the American colonial financial institutions to fund. As a matter of fact as far as I remember I believe about 2/3 of the war got funded from American loans. And the empire began imposing taxes upon the colonies with the logic that they had contributed just as much if not more to the war effort. By their logic America should be paying their fair share for funding the war when it was really the American banks who were owed. This as well as a lesser known stamp act along with the famous tea tax that resulted in the Boston tea party was America reacting as though they had been slapped in the face on their part of the entire exchange and that it was the crown that needed to be repaying the Colonies for the outstanding loans that funded the seven years war.
Kind of like an older brother going "Hey can I borrow $100 to take a girl on a nice date, I will pay you back $120 . . . Hey you know how I help you with your homework, you need to pay me $10 a week now".
When I was in High school in the early 70's I started each year learning about the Magna Carta of 1215 and made it through WW1.Year after year. Never made it to WW2. .
very similar. I was in school in the 80's - always made it to WWII, never past. Of course the Cold War hadn't ended yet, so might have been harder to teach.
We managed to miss Vietnam, Korea, WWI, and the Cold War. We did cover hippies and the Space Race. Priorities. I am an early Millenial. Reading "The Hunt for Red October" recreationally in high school may have been my introduction to the Cold War.
@user-dg9pu4pe9d my American history classes were the American Revolution to WW1 for one semester then WW1 to present which when I graduated was 1990.
0:50 - Chapter 1 - The american revolution in england 3:45 - Chapter 2 - The war of 1812 in Canada 7:20 - Chapter 3 - WWII in Japan 10:25 - Chapter 4 - 09/11 all around the world
Yesterday, I learned that my great great great great grandfather was killed in a particularly awful battle during the American revolution, the "Wyoming Massacre." This happened in Pennsylvania in 1778.
I heard a chef who also like history said: history is not written by does who wins, is written by those who write things.... and thats the most accurate definition I ever heard.
Correct. Case in point: Vietnam. The people writing that the US lost are the North Vietnamese, who conquered South Vietnam two years after the Treaty, and American hating journalists and historians that were rightfully sick of the war, but wanted to paint America as losers.
It was over 30years ago but I'm pretty sure I didn't spend 4 months of education on the War of 1812. I vaguely remember more time being spent on the exploration of Canada and more focus on how the territories evolved over time and then confederation.
I was about to post similar. Middle and high school was in the 80s and for sure the War of 1812 was one day, maybe two. We were taught far more about the history of The Hudson Bay Company than pretty much any other Canadian focused topics.
I agree. We did learn about the war and the indigenous peoples huge contributions and that we won. But who would want to keep the south side of the strait (river) now known as the city of Detroit.
I disagree. War of 1812 was a tediously long part of history class at my school in southern Ontario. It's obviously not uniform, but whatever he's talking about in this video is definitely a reference to the curriculum found in schools like mine.
Did you learn about the part where Britain handed you your independence for being good little boys and girls as long as you continued to serve as a proxy state? ROFL
Man, I can't even recall what was taught to me back in the bad old days of highschool (79-83). I know I had a year of American History, but a lot of it was glossed over.
A museum I visited in China also gave the USSR significant credit for beating Japan. The way they put it, it was years-long Chinese resistance that wore down Japan, and then, once Stalin mentioned invading Japanese-held territory on top of this, Japan saw the writing on the wall, and surrendered. The bombs from the US were not even mentioned, and it was implied that a verbal declaration of intent from USSR was the nail in the coffin, without mention of any Soviet fighting. I think this was at the big museum in Nanjing, though it might've been one in Shenyang.
The Soviet's contributions to WWII has been vastly understated by the US. It's doubtful that the US would have won either theater without their massive sacrifices.
@@SmallSpoonBrigadeAnd vastly overstated by everyone who hates the US. It’s ok, we’re used to it. We’d have done just fine without the Soviets who didn’t land at Normandy or Tarawa.
@@SmallSpoonBrigade You might have a point in Europe, although people forget the massive amounts of aid the US provided the Russians that helped them stay in the fight with Germany. After the war the Soviets tried to rewrite it so that all the material, munitions, and food was Russian made. But they knew what SPAM was. For the Pacific, the Russian contribution was negligible. Japan had Germany to thank for removing the Soviet threat from their region for most of the war. The real threat from the Soviets at the end was their assault on the Japanese army on the mainland. The Soviets had little hope of invading the Japanese main islands. The Soviets had never attempted an amphibious invasion on any real scale that could threaten Japan. Even their invasion of the Kuril Islands was small, blundering, they lacked logistical support, and all of their invasion boats had to be provided by the US.
One of the best history classes I had in public middle school was a course on American history from other countries. Each chapter in the textbook was from a different perspective. I was surprised that the UK history books covered the American Revolution as a "brief skirmish" that became too expensive to maintain, so letting the colonies go was the better choice than to keep engaging in battles with the colonists
I'm an American, and I wasn't taught that the War of 1812 was an American victory or a point of national pride. The White House was burnt down. We were taught the issues both sides had with the other and it was suggested that the US were the inciting belligerents. I've certainly learned more about it since public school, but it wasn't too far off.
I'm assuming that neither Simon, nor the writer of today's episode, has heard of the 1707 Act of Union? More often than not, when Simon says "England" people should probably just assume that he should have said "Great Britain" or (if referring to events after 1801) "The United Kingdom". Perhaps this just emphasises the truth of the episode title.
Yeah, but to a lot of the world (and a lot of the British people I know personally) it's just "England". Just like we're called "America" by much of the world when most people in the US actually call it "The U.S." or "The United States". Only drunks and rednecks call it "Murica" here. lol
Or more likely he says England because despite it technically being a unification of several kingdoms, one kingdom tended to be a little more 'equal' than the others. There is no denying that the English were calling the shots.
England, the UK, and Great Britain are basically used interchangeably in the US. I'm intellectually aware there's a difference, but still do this. Probably a lot of Americans are unaware entirely.
@@philtackett5149 - is there anything you don't display ignorance of? you barely know about your own history but f*ck me, you even try to ignorantly lecture people about their own countries!
The Pilipino-American War: Practically if not literally absent from most middle/high school U.S. textbooks, I can't even imagine how it's covered in the Philippines. Heck, they now ignore their actual date of independence in the aftermath of World War 2 in favor of their declared date of independence from the P-A War, despite losing that war and that declaration being ultimately meaningless from a practical standpoint.
As a Greek-Romanian who has been enrolled in Romanian, Greek and even US history course curiculums, this is all very familiar and interesting. One experience tangential to this topic: Was at a conference with students from Turkey and Greece and was talking about the way contemporary news are reported (live history, so to speak) about the geopolitical agean sea tensions. From a Greek perspective Turkey is the major rival, and essentially the primary Greek security concern, but from the Turkish perspective, things were not symmetrical. The Turks attitude was similar to how this video described the British perspetive on the US war of independence: Turkey essentially has a larger security pie with concerns in other places and Greek-Turkish relations are not as large a portion of that pie of concerns. It was interesting to live the moment when you realize the thing the media constantly plays up in your info-bubble, is not as big of a deal for the other party's media-sphere.
The colonists weren't against paying taxes, they just wanted a say in the matter in parliament as British citizens. Further, what i learned in elementary school was just how many years the situation when on for, including almost a year of open fighting, before the colonists finally decided independence was the only option left.
LOOK! The British defeated the French in 1759 which unlocked much for westward expansion. The revolutionary "heroes" were mostly small minded slave owners who just did not want pay for a war that did more than their silly revolution never accomplished. As a Canadian I am proud of our history and our accomplishments. We are still a monarchy and one of the most successful democracies on this planet.
I've always been told - and have no reason not to believe it - the Thirteen Colonies were chafing under the treaties the British government had made with the natives, wanting the land for themselves. Rebelling and renouncing those treaties was the fastest way to that.
I'm told in Mongolia Genghis Khan is a national hero and portrayed as largely benevolent. There are multiple statues of him including a huge one. In Brazil students are taught a Brazilian, Alberto Santos-Dumont, invented the airplane.
Yeah, there’s quite a lot of nationalistic fake history in countries all around the world. The French like to claim they invented republicanism, and many of my own countrymen like to pretend that Henry Ford invented the automobile. The Belgians still pretend that King Leopold was anything but a monster and the Dutch and British both still have a rose-colored view their respective empires.
'Genghis Khan' is a bad spelling carried on through inertia by lazy Westerners. I learned outside of school that the modern Mongolian spelling is 'Chinggis Khaan'.
Alberto Santos-Dumont did invent one of the first powered heavier-than-air airships. This was Nov 1906. The airplane is a different machine and the first successful flight was the Wright brothers in 1903. So, Brazil is just using the wrong word but they're right that Santos-Dumont is an important character in the history of powered flight.
@@MrBrock314 Ah, that's interesting. One of the issues that comes up with those sorts of things is that it's not always obvious at what point you can say that something has been invented. Often it comes down to the person that comes up with a practical solution rather than the first one to do whatever it is.
Funny thing about the War of 1812 and Canada- when we visited Quebec, they never missed a chance to remind us that the US was the only country to ever attack Canada.
A lot of that is due... to the US. No one, not even the Chinese, would consider invading Canada with the US just across the border. Better to be good allies than stand alone.
It is kind of interesting as an American to think of how during the start of the US as a nation and get into the early 1800s, we pretty much gloss over the fact that Napoleon kept coming into power and launching these massive wars across the entire European continent for over a decade.
Yeah... I never learned about the American Revolution in school in the UK. A lot of the history I learned had to do with all the people who tried to invade Britain (which happened surprisingly frequently when ya think about it.) Not surprising that most countries' history teaching focusses on those countries.
@@That.Guy. And YET... none of those others rose to real world prominence. Most just became vassals of some other state afterward. Or like Canada, who still like to pretend they're British. lol
@@That.Guy.the only reason the us isn't a colony now is because England was to busy with more important things like ending the slave trade, fighting the french, Spanish, Dutch and probably a couple of others, thank them, the us wouldn't be there without them🤣😂🤣
@@JikokuKage Not remotely true. Before the French ever got involved the US had already forced the surrender of a full British army at Saratoga. And even at Yorktown, where the French made their most valuable battlefield contribution, the US contingent of the allied army was larger than the French contingent(Though the french navy definitely played a critical role). You really should call up your old history teachers and ask them why they failed you by repeating historically inaccurate tropes like "The only reason the US exists was France" when for the majority of the war the US fought alone. The first French troops to arrive in the colonies to aid the Continental army showed up in 1780. The war started in 1775. We captured our first British ARMY in 1777. The war ended in 1781(effectively - technically the treaty wasn't signed until 1783 but there was no more major fighting after Yorktown.) Out of six years of war the French only fought for one, and Yorktown was the ONLY major battle they fought in(Granted, it was an important one). Feel free to fact check any of this if you think I'm lying.
I could see how the UK/US wars would be minimized in UK history, US barely has to cover several hundred years to cover the recorded history of North America, UK has so much more to cover. Plus a big part of why it gets covered in US is that is the transition between separate colonies, to being the current nation, and a fair amount of our still relevant federal institutions were founded in that period or shortly after.
I learned about JFK's affair with Marilyn Monroe from an American History class at an English-speaking school in Lithuania... They didn't cover that in any of my USA history classes *in America* 😂
It was sort of tabloid common knowledge in the US, and pretty unimportant in the overall scheme of American History. Why would that nonsense be taught as history in ANY class?
The Soviet campaign did heavily impact Japans decision to surrender. It finally kicked the leg out from the under the Japanese Army blustering position and revealed just how detached from reality they were. They spent more time talking about the situation in Manchuria than they did discussing Hiroshima. Which makes sense the US had already been destroying whole cities with regular bombs, switching to nukes didn't change that reality. Though even then it still took the Emperor casting essentially a tie breaking vote to force a surrender. Whole situation was just crazy.
That's the point many Americans don't seem to understand. To the Japanese, it doesn't matter if 1 plane or 10,000 planes are used when a city is eradicated. So there is little reason to believe that would have cared very much about the atomic bombs.
Yeah the army was refusing to surrender hoping to hold on to main land territories, and didn't agree to surrender until the Russians invaded. The navy and airforce was dead and gone, and the Emperor wanted to surrender, but Japan was not a cohesive state at the time, and had gotten into the war with China because Army wanted it and disobeyed a direct order not to invade. And got in to the war with the US because the navy wanted it or it would stop supporting the army. So they needed to army to agree to surrender to be able to surrender.
That's completely ridiculous. They'd been fighting in Manchuria for FOURTEEN YEARS at that point, and it wasn't part of Japan. Just a source of resources important to them. But you would have us believe that Russia piling on there terrified them more than having two of their own cities vaporized by single bombs right out of science fiction. Seriously. Sell me a pound of whatever it is you're smoking. Must be amazing.
Yeah, it was pretty ridiculous for Simon to say that pretty much no one agrees that the decision to surrender was due to the Soviets, when that is the prevailing understanding in academia in the US.
It gets fairly complicated. I do think that the second nuclear bomb probably wouldn't have happened if there had been better communication, because the surrender would have taken longer had it been the cause. Also, the US had already leveled Tokyo. I do think that the Soviets probably did have more of an impact on the Imperial Japanese surrendering when they did than the US educational system was teaching when I was in highschool though because even with the nukes, the war could have gone on for quite some time just due to how spread out the Japanese Empire was and that there was such a limited supply of nukes.
One slight addition to the U.S. view on the War of 1812 that tends not to get brought up in schools: a side effect of it happening was that as soon as it was over, the United States was finally through with dealing with the Barbary pirates (excepting Morocco, who never broke their early peace treaty, everybody took advantage of the conflict to go right back to raiding American vessels) and did something about it via what turned out afterwords to be gunboat diplomacy. This proved a first domino that ended them as a threat to many smaller nations who didn't enjoy the ability England, France, and Spain shared to pay those guys off and actually make it stick. There was a significant victory by America that came about due to the war; it just wasn't part of the war itself.
Native U.S. senior citizen here. The War of 1812 was a minor skirmish in the closing months of the Napoleonic Wars. I have idly speculated on the outcome had Britain not been distracted and thus been able to bring its entire navy and army to bear against my ancestors. It’s possible we could have been forcibly reintegrated into the British Empire and I would be a British Citizen.
"and I would be a British Citizen." No you wouldn't. Most likely the US and Canada would be one country, (that like Canada) would have become a Dominion, then an independent country and member of the Common wealth. You would be better off with decent health care etc, and the world would be better off, as nuts like GW and the Orange idiot wouldn't get anywhere near power.
It would be that "French" part in "French Canadian". lol I'm betting things have been different when teaching history in Quebec vs Ontario for example.
@@Xsis_Vorok Québécois here (of the French persuasion). Secondary school 77-83. I honestly don’t remember 1812 being mentioned at all; I definitely would remember if we did (proud nerd here). We went from Plaines d’Abraham to the confederation in 1867.
My history teacher did. He said it was, in essence, the Second American Revolution. Because had we lost we likely would have fallen back under British rule. But it's more common to hear the Civil War taught as the Second War of Independence, especially if you went to school in the South.
@@justinb864 If any teacher is teaching it that way they should. Wait do we license them in the first place? Hmm Anyway yeah never heard EITHER of them referred that way.
@@justinb864 I live in Tennessee. When I was in both elementary and high school, our right-wing redneck history teachers taught us that the Civil War had almost nothing to do with slavery, and that during segregation most of “the blacks” were on board for keeping segregation in place just as most of white Americans were. I wish I was making that up, but that’s what we were taught. As with everything else in the South, the real enemy is Liberals/Progressives.
Math vs maths just like aluminum vs aluminium, mom vs mum, cookies vs biscuits, biscuits vs biscuits. Just proves geography has a major role in changes to words.
We could say “maths” just fine. But why would we? The contraction “math” already incorporates the “s” just as it does all the other letters in “mathematics” after the “h”.
From 1818 until 1911, both sides of the Pond used "math" as an abbreviation for mathematics. The Brits changed it to "maths" in 1911. Americans notoriously don't listen to the King or Queen anymore, so they said, "You can take your MISPRONUNCIATION and shove it up your arse." Grammatically, "math" is a singular word, which makes sense. "Maths" in British English is also treated as a singular word, which causes grammatical confusion. "Maths is my favorite subject." (When an etymology nerd enters the chat, you get a history lesson and English lesson combined.)
@@rhov-anion Huh, I'd been under the impression that "math" was like "fish" and "sheep", it was a word that represents both the singular and the plural.
@@rhov-anion Just like soccer was originally what just about everyone called the game since the 1800s, short for "association football." It stayed that way until the 1960s when "football" became more common in Britain.
For the war of 1812, it’s commonly believed that Canada burned down the white house despite it being British soldiers who did it. The reason why is simple, Canada was British at the time so those were seen as OUR soldiers, as well as many of those soldier later settling down and starting families in Canada. Therefore, Canadians say we did it, while the US and UK says Britain did it.
@@davidmarlow3624 yes, but as Canada was a part of Britain, we saw those soldiers as OUR soldiers, some of which settled in Canada later on. Remember, this was during a period where Canadians were a part of Britain and didn’t yet have our own independent identity. It wouldn’t have been much different than a Brit from England, A Brit from Wales, or a Brit from Scotland. Canadians were just Brits from Canada
There was no distinction between Canadians and other subjects of the British Empire at the time. Every soldier in Canada was viewed as a British soldier. Therefore, you're not wrong, the British Empire burned down the White House in retaliation for the sacking and burning of York, now Toronto. This by extension includes Canada. And as far as I know, there were British soldiers from Canada involved in said burning.
Well said and a point I've tried to make many times..canadians have a very fuzzy view of this history because of this..and many don't know enough of our history to realize the lines are extremely blurred
As a Canadian, I can assure you that we did not spend months learning about the War of 1812. In fact, I just learned more about it from this video than I ever did in school.
I'm 18, so I'm pretty fresh out of the American public school system. My class touched on the war of 1812 maybe once for 5 minutes in all the 13 years I had history classes. We learned almost nothing about Europe from the middle of the Roman empire until WWI, with just a pit stop to talk about the black plague. We learned nothing about Asia and Africa outside of Mesopotamia. We did have a guest come in and talk briefly about Chinese culture and some very vague history for a week one year. The only time we learned about South America was when my favorite teacher of all time went off-sylabus to talk about the repercussions of capitalist dogma during the cold war and the atrocities committed in the name of cheap bananas. The best history lessons I got (aside from our state-mandated local indigenous history and some interesting town stuff our school board selected with help from local activists and amateur historians) was when my series of awesome history teachers would go off-curriculum and do a deep dive into less nationalistic topics. My 6th grade teacher had us write narratives and make board games based in ancient civilizations, my 7th grade teacher taught us CRT and let us kead sociopolitical debates all class if something on our daily news show caught our attention, and in my sophomore year, my teacher had us watch Forrest Gump and do an analysis of Vietnam war songs, we studied the Kent State murders and the red scare. Those were our most important lessons, the ones that reminded us to question what we're taught and to try to hold our government accountable and not to forget or gloss over their spotty history. Because other than what I mentioned, every lesson for 13 years was about the American revolution and all of its glory (with textbooks ignoring the hypocrisy and distracting us from the slavery with Hamilton songs), with some lessons on our heroic victories in WWI & WWII, totally ignoring any war crimes possibly committed by us during the process. But I had every other year focus entirely on our revolutionary war, so much so that the civil war was an afterthought, and it was only because if great teachers that Westward Expansion had any criticism attached to it. Our country needs to get its sh!t together, Germany style, because we're already repeating the past. Also, we literally never talked about the war in the middle east except when we watched the news in 7th and Mr. A encouraged us to break it down, especially since many students had emigrated from those war-torn regions.
I learned at school that the last time England was invaded was in 1688, by the Dutch. It was a successful "cold war" involving spies, economic power, trade routes, and diplomatic opportunity. Effectively, the Dutch William of Orange sat on the throne and influenced the drafting of the English Bill of Rights. However, my friends from England found this outrageous, insisting that the last time they were invaded was in 1066, and that the Dutch were "invited" to take the throne. The teacher explained that William of Orange decided to call his taking of the throne a ‘Glorious Revolution,’ refusing to label it an invasion. He used the word ‘glorious’ because that is what he exclaimed when the wind changed, allowing his ship to easily sail into London, and that is why he put it into history.
Not even the French coming over in 1216 to take the crown from King John, an invasion that ended quickly when John died and his son provided a better alternative to a French prince.
Like the immortalisation of the founding fathers and the American war of independence in the US, the Norman conquest of England in 1066 has somehow been ingrained as the "last invasion" in English, and then later British, history as a symbol of national pride and what not. The reason? Possibly because the accounts that claimed it to be so we're written soon thereafter. But there is an entire list of times England, and later Britain, were invaded following 1066... And there were a lot of them - including the "glorious revolution". However, the narrative to glorify 1066 as "the last invasion" usually comes with an asterisk which states *Last successful longterm invasion of England/Britain/British territories - because heaven forbid mentioning the occupation of the Falklands by Argentina, or the occupation of the channel islands by German forces during world war 2, or the multiple french invasions during the 13-14th centuries, or the failed french invasion of Wales during the Napoleonic wars. Heck, many of the recorded invasions get brushed away with statements such as "well the anarchy was an English civil war... So Matilda and Henry the ii were defacto English, so it doesn't count" or "well the Scottish invasions of northern England don't count because we're all British" ignoring the fact that "were all British" because England would invade Wales, Scotland and Ireland on multiple occasions (but we don't count those invasions because ummmm 1066). The whole "the Dutch were invited" justification for keeping 1066 runs foul when you ask the question - well what was King James II/VII thought on the matter? Was the King consulted regarding this invitation for someone to usurp his throne? Another justification for not counting the "glorious revolution" is typically the excuse that no blood was shed because of it... Ignoring the fact that fighting did break out in the Scottish Highlands as a result, between those clans that supported James and those that didn't - laying the foundations for the two Jacobite risings which would see Jacobite forces invade northern England (and parts of Scotland) from highland strongholds in the north.
I think that's right. It was the last successful invasion of Britain by a foreign power, albeit with the cooperation and collusion of many in the British aristocracy and parliament. If it had failed it would have been known as the Dutch treason
Actually, Russian textbooks claiming responsibility for Japan's surrender does make sense when you remember the long-standing fued between Russia and Japan at the time.
Well, as far as I remember my history classes back in 90's there were hardly anything about Manchuria, but there was something about nuclear bombings for sure. We were pretty much concentrated on the Eastern front for obvious reasons. And come to think of it - 9/11 happened just on my first non-school September, watched it live. And you can't forget things like that one. Kudos from Russia. Thanks for your work.
@Inetman If I'm remembering correctly from various UA-cam history tidbits, there were several 'confrontations' between Soviet military forces and Imperial Japanese forces before WWII happened. None of them were more than a skirmish, and it wasn't always actual military forces on both sides of the encounters, but it did happen several times and never with a definite overall victor. So, claiming to be the force that convinced Imperial Japan to surrender gives them a rather absolute victory to claim, even if it was the American forces the Japanese forces surrendered to.
growing up in Moscow in the mid-late 80s, when i got to the US in 89 i was very surprised to learn that Japan was involvedin ww2. all we learned was that the great patriotic war was against the germans (and italians finns and romanians helped them) the pacific theater was not even an afterthought at all
@jonathanlindsey790 Strange. I have such a strong love of a free market that no-one else has ever called me a communist. Are you sure you actually understood what you read? Or even that you have a grasp on the idea that the more heavily regulated a society is the more those in power can twist the narrative to make themselves look better? I'm seriously doubting your capacity in either of those regards.
When I was a combat advisor working with young Iraqi interpreters in 2008 and 2009, it was explained to me that we were invited. I asked the young man what he learned in school. He said that Iraq had won the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980's, and that Saddam had held back the Americans and gained victory over them in 1991. The fact that he remained in power was proof. He learned that in 2003 the Iraqi people "invited" the United States to help them overthrow Saddam so technically that was a victory as well. Interesting.
While the War of 1812 was a draw on paper, it was strategically an important win for the United States. It secured our western frontier and convinced the British that trying to contain US westward expansion was not worth the effort. It put an end to any lingering hopes in some factions that the USA would fail and rejoin the British Empire.
Yup. And considering the French had just tripled the size of the United States by selling their holdings on the continent, it was more about the British trying to stop another country from rising to prominence and opposing them. They failed in that endeavor. (And yeah, I spell that without the u because of George Washington, thank you very much.) ROFL
Actually, the British won the War of 1812. It was a defeat for the U.S. One of the major causes of the war was the U.S. attempt to annex Canada. That failed miserably. The U.S. was just fortunate that the British decided it wasn't worth it to keep pouring men and resources into fighting the war.
The US accomplished the vast majority of its war goals, the Empire failed to accomplish the vast majority of its. We call it a draw, but it wasn't.. not really. US made huge gains as a result of the war, especially when viewed under the lens of long-term consequences of the war.
It only seems like the U.S. didn't win if you let OTHER countries decide what our victory requirements were. We wanted free trade and no impressment. We got what we wanted. Invading Canada was a means to that end.
The War of 1812 taught the US that having a tiny Army and Navy wasn’t enough. The military academies, a bigger standing army and the first giant (and instantly obsolete) ships of the line all sprang up soon after the blockade and raids of that war. And, no, this yank didn’t learn that until I was adult.
Well, we were understandably paranoid about a massive army of occupation forcing themselves on us and taking our livelihoods. Years of British rule gave us that particular bugaboo.
@@jonathanlindsey790 Plus, Napoleon had been defeated not long after, and it wasn’t an unreasonable fear that the Brits might want to come and have words with us about bothering them when they were fighting for survival. Nobody was under any delusions what a Britain without a war on their shores could do if they put in the effort.
I have a friend who is Japanese. The version of history he was taught in his youth (he is in his late 60s now) says that the Japanese offered to negotiate a peaceful end to the war, but the US did not want a peaceful, negotiated agreement, and dropped the first atomic bomb just two days later. On his last visit here, we were driving on I-95, and when we crossed the Quinnipiac River bridge in New Haven CT, before daybreak when the bridge was all lit up in blue, he asked if this bridge had a name. Although locals call it the Q Bridge, it's actually the Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge.
I remember once on international travel I picked up a magazine in the U.K. and read an article that was talking about the "trade dispute of 1812". It took me a couple of minutes to realize it was describing the War of 1812 and I exclaimed, "Trade dispute?!? You burnt down our White House!!!" 😂
interesting. Laura Secord's name is pronounced 'Sea-cord' by Canadians. The war of 1812 is considered a major event in the defining of Canada. Essentially the viciousness (with the burning of York, now Toronto, and looting of farms and estates) of the conflict led many people who had no opinion of the Americans either way, to turn against them and the idea that Canada might someday become part of the U.S.
@@AndyWarhol1962 It was a big deal in Ontario schools when I was a kid. And the Battle of Chrysler Farm has a park/national historic site somewhere near Upper Canada Village. (I went to UCV on school trips but don't remember if we actually stopped at Chrysler Farm - I think we did at least once.) For some of us it was local history.
@@AndyWarhol1962 It’s much closer to home in Ontario and Quebec where most of the events took place. I live a few hundred meters from one of the battlefields here in Stoney Creek Ontario.
True, but you could say similar things about every other example in the video. History is taught through the lens of national bias, which means proximity will have a significant impact on the weight placed on given events. Think how British schools ignore the War of 1812 because the Napoleonic wars were alot closer and happened at the same time
@@izzyj.1079 Except while Napoleon was a threat, he didn't have immeasurable resources like the ones the British abandoned in North America. Long-term, the loss of North America was far more impactful on the future of the British Empire than yet another fight with France.
@@jonathanlindsey790 Sure, but they wouldn't have realized that at the time, and it doesn't pay to bellyache about it when we're allies anyway. In terms of broader history, the resources available in North America, and the swiftness with which they allowed America to ascend to great power status, is entirely unprecedented.
Very interesting vid! Our perceptions of world events all start with the education system plus personal experiences! This vid gives an overview as to why the world perceives world events differently! A subject i hadnt thought to much about but one that impacts our world greatly!
@@white-dragon4424 Really, because Latin would beg to argue that your guy Humphry Davy borrowed Alumen, a bitter salt coprised of potassium aluminum sulphate, from Latin when he actually isolated the metallic element. The the very properly British Humphry Davy, proposed Alumium(1808), then actually named it Aluminum officially four years later(1812), whereupon some poncy British writer thought Aluminium sounded more "classical", or perhaps "Latiny" and thus launched a debate that rages on because no one ever cares enough to do even minimal research. The irony is this same stupid thing happens all the damned time, for example, the British are who named what they call "football" Soccer in the first place, Americans are taught the "proper" English because it was a non-native language to many of our ancestors, thus we brought in professionals to teach it across our nation. In America we do the same crap with Spanish and French, which is why every French and Spanish speaking nation around the world thinks Americans only speak one language, and speak that one badly. The folks from England plainly speak "British" as the Britons were linguistically-drifting long before we Americans went our own way, and don't get me started on my incomprehensibly correct mangling of the Spanish language in the ears of every actual Spanish speaker.
@@white-dragon4424And the gentleman who discovered it (you don’t “invent” an element) named it “ALUMINUM.” The journal editors who published his paper made the change without his knowledge or permission. You’re welcome.
Vietnamese people tend to learn of their countries liberation through victory in the "French War" and the "American War". There was no "Vietnam War". Americans learn that 58,220 people were killed in the "Vietnam War", the number of US combatants killed, ignoring the approximately 3,000,000 Vietnamese combatants and civilians killed in the "American War". Sometimes history should be written by the victors.
What is also missing from your American Revolution analysis was Spain’s involvement as well. Bernardo de Gálvez won many battles along the Gulf of Mexico coast. His victories helped hinder the British supply lines. He also protected American privateers.
And we are truly grateful for all European Nations and European Nationals (like some of the Polish immigrants that came over to help. Long Live Poland). That being said, I cannot stand Europeans that think they carried the US to victory in this war, because that is simply untrue.
No, it was the 15 years of multiple taxes that lit the keg. If you want to point to any one act, it was the stamp act, which was a tariff on paper products. But after that, there were dozens of new taxes levied, colonists refused to pay them, they were repealed. Only for a new tax to be levied immediately. All so Britain could refill their coffers and keep fighting the French for the 300th year in a row.
Took me until college to have to learn that britain had actually broken quite a few laws that it wouldn't have done with british subjects That quartering thing is from Magna Carta, for crying out loud!. The whole thing was really an argument on whether we were british subjects or colonists. And when britain kept treating us as colonists, we said. OK, we're not british subjects? FINE WITH US!"
and the fact Britain was preparing to abolish slavery and also stopped the colonists stealing more native land. it's funny how americans don't mention that...
@@SafetySpooon oh stop crying. laws against quartering were suspended in britain plenty of times too. the american desire to be seen as victims is hilarious!
0:58 Wait, Americans start learning history from the American revolution? I hope it's just a generalization or that they simply don't study history in chronological order...
It's hyperbole. The revolution is effectively where American history becomes its own entity beyond general world history. In elementary schools, anything pre-colonial America is typically condensed into one or two units on nomadic tribes, the resulting ancient civilizations once the nomads settled, and what European nation ultimately conquered & colonized which parts of the Americas. The colonial period is then treated as no more than the prelude to the revolution.
More your last suggestion. In many school systems, it's the first bit of history taught. Primary school mostly focuses on civics and how society works. Middle school gets into American history, then high school does world and European history. Of course, different school districts have different specifics and each state has its own learning standards, but at least in Pennsylvania where I went to school, that's pretty much the standard. At least it was a couple decades ago.
In my experience, it depends which class you are taking. It also varies by state and school district, as each state sets its own history standards and each district chooses how to implement them. For me, in elementary and middle schools in Wisconsin we studied World History and American History in alternating years. World History classes covered Egypt, Greece, Native American tribes in North and South America, and a bit about Rome. American History classes started with several European countries and their earliest exploration and colonization efforts, jumped forward to the British colonies, covered the Revolutionary War in detail, and then jumped forward to rush through a bit of the Civil War. Unfortunately, every year from Kindergarten through high school, we'd start all over again in the same place we'd started two years prior, cover the same early history exhaustively, and jump ahead for the same rushed final topic as the year came to a close. I'm still disappointed that we never studied Asia, Australia, most of Africa, most of Europe, nor most of the Americas. I'm also disappointed that we never studied any American History that happened between the two wars, nor anything after 1865. With the one exception that we did also study World War II in seventh grade, albeit mostly in English class rather than history class. As a result, my school years gave me the impression that history was boring and irrelevant. It wasn't until I was an adult that I discovered how interesting, expansive, and relevant history actually is.
Maybe he’s trying to emphasize that its outsized importance in our history classes, but we definitely learn about the pilgrims, especially around Thanksgiving, and other early colonists arriving in the lead-up to the revolution, which is one of the easier events to understand for elementary school kids.
As an American, I was only ever taught that the War of 1812 gave rise to the national anthem, it was a stalemate, and nobody gained a thing, so it was a pointless loss of life and waste of resources. Basically a footnote of history to use as a filler between U.S. independence and the start of the American Civil War.
New Orleans was fought before Ghent was ratified by Congress, therefore we were at war with Britain and Edward Packenham was invading New Orleans. He was beaten and died. A brave man who survived Salamanca, Vitoria, all the Pyrenees, and Toulouse, died in the USA. I know he was not broadly significant but that was Wellington’s brother in law, an interesting bit of history imo
Originally, Wellington himself was supose to go to the US in 1814, but decided to stay in Europe. He was this close to being on the other side of the Atlantic during Waterloo.
@@Imjustasimpleman5310 The British government also wanted Wellington to lead the Allied army over Schwarzenberg initially and to then greatly reduce the Peninsular Army and to just hold the Pyrenees (it would have been a disaster for the allies once Soult attacked). Wellington had little interest in either command.
@@Anna-B It was definitely the taxes that prompted it. The British Empire spent huge amounts of $$ defending the American colonies during the Seven Years War, and they decided that because it benefitted the colonies so much they should be the ones to pay for it, and they'd do so by raising taxes on them. That's what prompted it.
@@tacitus6384No, it was the lack of representation. The Magna Carta had laid out that the king could not levy a tax on an area without the approval of the kingdom’s “common counsel”, i.e. Parliament. Hence, it was settled fact in Britain at this time that it was the right of all Englishmen to be represented in Parliament if they were to be taxed. But the unrepresented colonists in the US were deprived of this right once the British began to levy taxes on them. The problem was that the Crown was taxing the colonists *without them having representation* that was the affront that started the war. That was an infringement on their sacred rights as Englishmen. The lack of representation was fine as long as they were not taxed, and the taxation would have been fine had they been granted their request to have a representative in Parliament. It was the King’s insistence on taxing them but refusing to give the colonies even a single MP that was the issue.
In all fairness we ,the United States, also study European, and events ,past and present, worldwide. At least those of us with any sense of curiosity. Being a history grad from a southern military college perhaps I'm different.
When I was in high school, we had four years of social studies. State history, US History, World History, Civics. Our language education also included world literature. Sadly, my son just graduated high school and only took a year of world history and a year of combined state/us history. No civics class, which might be why so many Americans are so utterly stupid about how our own system of government works. History has been deemed unimportant next to "STEM" education. Problem is, without history, we literally have no knowledge of what has failed or succeeded in the past. It's like sitting down to rediscover an element after the previous discoverer's notes have been burned.
@@jonathanlindsey790 My state did local, state, US, and world geography in elementarily. Civics and sort of pre 1900s world cultural history in middle school (7th/8th grade then, has changed since). Then WW1 - Cold War history in high school, though only two years in high school were required. So I could understand how a lot of people in my state would have forgotten a lot of civics by the time graduate, even worse if not interested in it at the time.
For me in the 1990's it was 9th and 10th grade Global Studies, 11th grade American History, 12th grade one semester of Economics, one semester of U S. Government. We did local history in elementary school. College was great for someone who enjoyed history just at our local community college I took elective courses on WWII and the Civil War, entire classes dedicated to these wars, although I was a business major.
The issue tends to be time. There's a lot of history that has to be left out in order to have students graduate when they do. You go to college and learn a bunch of stuff like that the HS version is often lacking to the point of bordering on fraud.
I'm American and my history teacher in high-school taught it as a draw. Which he said when fighting the best Army in the world, and the cost of losing is losing your new country it is a victory.
I read that the Japanese themselves discussed surrender based on who would treat them better afterwards, fearing retrebution from Russia the most. As far as I remember the bombs did not make any impact as they, up until Russia came along, were going to fight to the last man. Memory is not very reliable, so please excuse me if I'm dead wrong☺️
@@MrBrock314 Their council was deadlocked at 3-3 even after the USSR attacked and 2 atomic bombs were dropped, until the emperor finally broke the deadlock. According to the emperor the bombs were the primary reason but the more research you do, the more you start to realize that it was the combination of multiple factors that caused them to finally surrender. Operation Starvation had some impact as well, and a lot of people aren't even aware of it. I don't know why so many people struggle with something that's very nuanced and has no simple answers. Even after the emperor recorded the surrender there was an attempted coup and they weren't too concerned about the USSR who had no ability to invade the Japanese in any event. Even the UK and US were looking at a shortage of shipping for a proper invasion of Japan so i'm not sure how the USSR was supposed to invade.
@@jameshannagan4256You don't know why people struggle with things that are very nuanced and not simple? Isn't the reason a lot of people struggle with stuff like that right there in the description?
Rep. Ilian Omar described the 9-11 attacks as “some people did something”. So your description of how 9-11 is taught in Middle Eastern schools is not a surprise.
In the U.S.south it was/is taught in schools that the U.S. civil war is called "The war of Northern aggression"; Another overlooked bit of history is that leading up to 1776; The King forbid western expansion (due to colonists un-lifing natives and taking land). The King had treaties and plans with the Natives west/around of Appalachia. This was one of the last straws to break the camel's back for us. What do you mean we can't take what we want?
Yes history could have been so different if the King hadn't have been not all there upstairs, and the PM and old duffer who could barely remember his name. Dealt with correctly the Revolt wouldn't have happened. It was after all about a tax used to pay for their protection, as they had P'd off the locals, and the Empire couldn't afford the troops due to the war with France. Presented correctly I'm sure most would have understood.
As a Canadian, I can assure you that the war of 1812 isn’t taught for more than a week, never mind 3-4 months. Are participation in WW1 & 2 is more important.
As a 43 year old Canadian - the war of 1812 did use to have a larger presence in Canadian history. 3-4 months might be a bit of an exaggeration but it was at least a full unit back in the day.
@@quintuscrinis They also got shafted by letting England do their peace negotiations so their borders never changed (despite technically winning the war and gaining much of the territory northwest of the Ohio River). The US and Native American history would be very different if the Canadians had kept that territory.
@@quintuscrinis No, instead they got a leftist puppet who tried to shut down his economy during COVID and arrested those trying to feed their families.
@@ancova1183 Nah, once Britain lost interest in Canada and their failing grip on North America, the US would have just taken that territory anyway. Canada has been United States-lite for many many years at this point. Only the aspiration to British roots makes them feel superior.
@@jonathanlindsey790 Except we are superior. We live longer, pay less for healthcare, have a better education system and have a higher overall quality of life. It's not delusion if it's a fact.
The biggest outcome from the War of 1812 was the song "The Battle of New Orleans". "In 1814 we took a little trip Along with Colonel Jackson down the mighty Mississip'"
A small misunderstanding about how 9/11 and US schools in general. While in September history may focus on 9/11, it is not without context. In addition to briefly covering the events leading up to the attacks in a way that's okay for younger students, by the time we are old enough to learn in greater detail, we already know much of the context. For example, when studying European history we learn about the causes of various conflicts, such as the Crusades, wars with the Ottoman Empire, and the lasting impact of territorial partitioning. When we learn about the Thirty Years War or the Napoleonic Wars, we are also taught how political and religious motivations have shaped global powers. In math we study economics and how commodities like oil can influence global economies and governments, using examples like OPEC and its influence on international relations. In U.S. history, we learn how British colonial policies and the aftermath of WWII influenced the United States complicated relationships with Israel and other Middle Eastern countries when we learn about the politics behind conflicts like the first Gulf War. I don’t remember ever seeing a lesson titled "Why the U.S. Was Attacked," but by the time we look at the attacks in detail, we already know the broader context and history-whether it’s the role of the CIA in Cold War operations, the influence of the USSR, or the rise of Islamic terrorism. Things like that are taught in different lessons at different times in things that might sometimes sound unrelated, like geography or literature.
Having lived in the States at the time of 9/11 and years later - your experience is uncommon. I watched US news for weeks after the attack and very little context was given other than bin Laden attacking the same building in the early 90s which is less context and more propaganda. I lived again in the States in 2005-2007 and the coverage was basically the same. Even events like the Israel-Lebanon war were given the most miniscule coverage. There was no mention of why Islamic extremists were targeting the United States other than the same refrain of "they hate freedom and bikinis". No mention of US rigging of the 1979 Iranian election. No mention of US purchasing and distribution of biological weapons to Iraq and the million dead Iranians that followed. Very little mention of the hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths in Iraq at the hands of US forces for an illegal war.
@@MrBrock314 I was referring to education, not news coverage. You will never learn anything of value from so-called journalists who only work for views. "...hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths in Iraq at the hands of US forces...' And this is why the difference is important. Most Americans _know_ that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died at the hand of US forces. Except that didn't happen. The news media wants you to believe that it did, so you believe it, but factually, what actually happened was hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were killed by fellow Iraqis, not US forces. Watching the news will only make you less informed.
FYI Mathematics is a singular noun that was mistaken as plural due to ending in S so was abbreviated incorrectly by the British as Maths. Just amused you used one of the examples where the Americans actually got it right.
Us British would be ashamed if our country only existed because of the French. The way you lot celebrate a bunch of god botherers getting their big brave French boyfriends to fight their battles is cringe worthy. I can't believe you draw such attention to it. Haha. Oh la la, so romantic. 🇺🇲🍆🇫🇷. ❤️❤️❤️ 😂😂😂
@PenguinEconomics-st2ws Well, please don't wake up our american brothers from their idea of pure country led by people made from peasants. Like civil war was about abolishing slavery in the name of the good instead of economical and political dominance of north over south.
*I Love OUR Lord DonaLd Trump, & HE is the MOST Honest REAL MAN, in History!!!!* *DonaLd Trump WINS by a LAND SLIDE in just 24 more days!!! Weeeeeeeeeeeee*
Haha, but you're happy that you're country exists because of the French. That would be more shameful for us Brits than our strategic withdrawal from hostilities is.
In my experience with American public schools in the 1990s, history was taught from a very USA-centric perspective: 1. The Greeks and Romans only matter because they invented democracy and Western culture. 2. Spain only matters because they discovered the Americas. 3. England and France only matter to show the contrast between Constitutional Monarchy and Absolute Monarchy. 4. The rest of Europe doesn't matter before 1914. Asia didn't matter before 1941. Africa never mattered (maybe Ancient Egypt). Also, history basically just ended after WW2 because there was never time left in the semester to cover anything more recent.
I mean, to be fair, it is more important to understand and learn our own history as there is a lot to it. That being said, it should be encouraged to learn history outside the US.
As an American, I've never seen the War of 1812 described as an American victory even when I was in elementary school. At lower levels what's taught is basically that it was a strange war with no victor, the national anthem came from it, Washington burned, Dolley Madison saved Washington's portrait, and Andrew Jackson won the Battle of New Orleans after the war was over.
You mean violated the terms of the peace treaty after the war was over....
Andrew Jackson won the battle of NEW OR-LEENS, not the battle of OR-LEE-AHN.
This is accurate.
As an American, it was taught as an American victory, and cemented America's independence when I was in school. In high School it was given some more nuance, but it was still treated as a victory overall.
The goal of the invasion for the British was to conquer the US, but they couldn't and gave up. The goal for the US was to not be conquered and to remain independent. Sounds like the US won to me.
in the US, the War of 1812 is actually usually taught as a pretty needless war that ended in a draw but taught with pride that we still fought back against a superior power while still in our infancy. But not taught as a win by any means.
Not sure about the superior power. There were very few professional troops in Canada.
@@davidsoulsby1102 but we were still against Britain, which at the time wasn't a slouch and arguably the world's only super power at the time
Canadians are told US President Madison attacked the Canadas (the colonies of Upper Canada and Lower Canada) because he saw an opportunity to annex them. Since Britain was preoccupied with fighting Napooeon in Europe and wouldn't be able to send troops to reinforce the Canadas, he used the pressing of US sailors into the Royal Navy as a pretext to invade.
The war of 1812 ended when Napoleon was defeated which freed large numbers of British troops to serve in North America. An advance contingent of British troops landed south of Washington, completely defeated the Americans at the Battle of Bladensburg (which was the worst defeat ever inflicted on the US army in it's entire history, and one which Americans are never taught about in school), and continued their march around the Chesapeake toward their winter quarters where they'd wait for the rest of the British Army to arrive in the spring. On their way, they torched some public buildings in Washington and shot up Baltimore in what was essentially a drive-by.
Madison and the US government was panic stricken at the prospect of facing the professional British Army, and not some undermanned colonial troops from Canada, and agreed to peace. Britain agreed to restoring the pre-war status quo because they had bills to pay after fighting Napoeon since 1803. So both sides made some face-saving boasts and went back to living their lives.
If you want to hear a Canadian take on this, listen to "The War of 1812" song by The Arrogant Worms. It's hilarious!
@@DaveGIS123 the Canadian invasion stuff, all true. Madison and his friends felt a bit too cocky. At that time, the US military was still more of a bunch of militias, so we never really stood a chance in a fair fight. But this idea Americans treat it as a victory of sorts is just silly. I'm just glad times have changed and our alliances have been strengthened so well. Sure there is political rhetoric back and forth but I'm always happy our maple syrup loving little war criminals up north are on our side 🤣 Canada does not get enough respect for their military endeavors, especially during WW2.
But the US did win
United States: We took on the British Empire, and we didn't lose!
Canada: We took on the United States, and we didn't lose!
Britain: Ah yes, 1812, jolly spiffing time with that Napoleon frog chap…
Except the Brits lost to Napoleon decisively until Waterloo. And, arguably, they would've lost there too except that Napoleon had hemorrhoids and couldn't ride his horse to rally his troops like he'd done to great effect in previous battles.
@@MrBrock314 Peninsular War?
United States: in 1814 we took a little trip down to the mighty Mississippi we took a little bacon and we took a little beans and we caught the bloody British in the town of New Orleans.
US and Canada: Did we just become best friends?
I love to see a rematch on the US/Canada war front..I suspect a possible different outcome???
I started school in Canada, and finished in America. I was blown away with how different the emphasis on 1812 was, especially how they completely ignore the fact they DID want to annex Canada. It was also fun in class talking about the American Revolution. The teachers would say "You're ancestors fought to make this country", but like, my family were British Officers.
So were theirs
Mine weren't even involved and I got the same lectures
Canadians are Americans, Canada is part of the American continent, and one of 36 American countries.
@@cosmicsquid That's just being pedantic. Yes America is the name of the continent, but its pretty clear from context that they are referring to the USA (which is also called America in common usage).
Not sure where you're from, as it might be different there, but its pretty common to refer to the US as America, and the continent as North America/South America.
Also America is a geographical continent, but not a geopolitical one, so it would be disingenuous to say American in the same way as European for example, in the same way that we don't generally refer to people from East Russia as Asian.
@@matthewstarkie4254 "Who is we?" People from the 44 European countries are Europeans just like people from the 36 America countries are Americans.
No one country in Europe has the distinction of being described by many as the only European country the way the United States is in America.
Simply the word "America" is an abused misnomer used by many that have no clue about American history and geography. Thanks
@@cosmicsquid "we" is a general we, as I don't think anyone refers to people from East Russia as Asian (though I could be wrong), and doing so would generally be considered confusing.
Just like referring to Canadians as American would be confusing, and even using the term European is potentially confusing as it could referring to either the EU or the continent.
No one is saying people from other countries on the continent can't call themselves American, but it was pretty clear from context that the OP was referring to the country, not the continent, and telling a Canadian that they should refer to themselves as American is not really your call (unless you are Canadian), especially as it would be so easy to misunderstand.
I recall having a Japanese student on exchange in the uk in the 90s. It was the first time I realised they don’t learn much at all about the war. We were studying it in history and she had never heard of Japan being involved at all. She had some hard lessons that year I think. She was lovely though
Same, here in Australia. My parents were renovating our house and stripping off layers of newspaper that had been used as wallpaper in one room, and the news was all about various events of WWII as seen in the Pacific. Our Japanese exchange student had absolutely no idea of her country's real involvement in the war.
That one is REALLY hard to swallow MILLIONS OF JAPANESE citizens were killed by us the americans. AND IT WAS THE FIRST TIME GENOCIDE WAS COMMITTED WITH ATOMIC BOMBS. That is pretty hard to hide, even for the USA.
My coworker used to have a Japanese exchange student, and didn't say much when they were teaching about WWII, but just looked very uncomfortable.
Yeah it's quite worrying to be honest.
That and the younger generations in Japan think that Russians did Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
If I remember correctly, the war of 1812 was taught in my school as a stalemate, but that a stalemate for the fledgling United States was a victory because it reaffirmed independence and brought us away from being seen as under the British umbrella for good. A situation where you don't have to win, you just can't lose.
That’s what I was taught in school. Louisiana might’ve put a bit more emphasis on it due to the Battle of New Orleans. Although I remember having to write a book report about it for my fifth grade history class.
@@coltonwilliams4153 Lol I am from Baltimore, Maryland, so we also probably put more emphasis on it since the battle of Baltimore and the fort that defended the capital was there. We even had field trips to Fort McHenry, which is where the star spangled banner takes place.
Defining wins and losses in wars can be rather complicated if the result is anything either than either an unconditional withdrawal or complete capitulation. The US' Vietnam conflict could be interpreted as a success as the US was there as a result of the domino theory that if they lost Vietnam, that other countries would follow. And that really didn't happen. OTOH, the US lost a lot of service personnel and didn't get to keep any of the land, hence why it's more typically considered to be a loss.
Exactly. It is the defining trait of being American to stand up to bullies even if you lose (or fight to a draw).
@@SmallSpoonBrigade Considering failures to hold onto land like Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc. It makes it sound ridiculous when those from other countries (usually Europeans) calls the U.S an empire/imperialistic. How often in history did imperialists pay to rebuild countries while letting them keep control? The U.S paid to rebuild Europe, Russia, China, AND Japan after WW2. Seems pretty bad at empire-building. Just comes off as actual imperialists trying to be like "look over there! they're the imperialist ones! just forget about all the colonialism we did...."
My wife, who is Belorussian, was taught that the atomic bomb was a pre emptive strike by the west, and that is why you should be afraid of them. ‘If they did it to Japan, they could do it to us’.
She had no knowledge of pearl harbour or the atrocities committed against allied soldiers and civilians.
troo a lut uv pepl ulso repet thut. but rele tha cood huv negosheatd a cundshnl surndr
They must have some pretty insane online censorship to be able to get away with that.
If they are taught that it explains a lot about why things don’t change there.
Eight years ago many people in the US were part of a movement called Q-Anon and they believed Satan worshipping child molesters were running the country. A sample size of one from a flock of idiots could give you very misleading results.
@@nooyorcste i knw thosse japnees people wer crazi in ww2 wtf and da bombs fallin nd all round rapped up n it lik wow
@nooyorcste your gibberish is so bad it has a "translate to English" notation. Do better
Another good example is Ireland. Ireland’s struggle for freedom and away from British colonialism is huge in Irish schools but I have met British people who still think Ireland is part of the UK and have no idea of the history of Ireland, its nearest neighbour and Britain’s role in it.
True. There are so many levels to this. For instance many people in Ireland have completely forgotten the roles Irish people played in the wider Empire such as in the slave trade.
@@owenjones1328 Unfortunately true, and you can find it in other countries. Films like The Nightingale present Ireland's role in the Empire as strictly that of a victim, when in reality it was a lot more nuanced. About a quarter of the British Army was Irish at one point, and many of the officers were Irish protestants, as were many senior imperial administrators. Of course, this wouldn't make for comfortable reading for the Irish, so it tends to get papered over.
Technically, part of Ireland *is* still part of the U.K., and there used to be a lot of violence there due to that fact.
@@biggiouschinnus7489 yep a large part of the British army especially during the napoleonic/ peninsula wars was Irish, even the Duke of Wellington was Irish .
I know plenty of Americans who think the same (of course many think my state is part of Canada, so we're not exactly top tier lol)
That's why many of my history papers where I got to choose a topic were about Ireland's long struggle for independence
Also, a friend told me yesterday that she JUST learned that Scotland is part of Great Britain... She had no idea it was "attached to England" 🤦🏼
Knew a guy in the Air Force who grew up in Japan and went to Japanese schools until High School. He was telling us in the 90's his history class basically spent a few weeks on the Meiji Revolution, another week going up to the late twenties, then it was basically "World War II started, the US dropped A-bombs on us, and on to the recovery." Apparently, when he asked his teacher about Pearl Harbor they said that was only discussed in college history classes.
Interesting. History class in germany for Milennials was hell depressing.
@@marcbeebee6969 That's what I've heard. Everyone I've met who went to school in Germany said they visit a camp at least once a year.
I guess all the Japanese were on vacation from 1937-1945. Those American battleships were scuttled by their crews.
@@Plaprad not with school. With school once at around 16.
But we have golden stones where the nazis hijacked the jewish population with their names. In every city. And they are studied, stones and people
Because who cares apart from Americans? You are not the world.
I studied in a Russian school. We weren't taught that Japan surrendered because of the Soviets, but we did learn about the Soviet-Japanese war, which wasn't resolved until September 1945.
Why do the normal streets in russia on russian dashcam look messed up like in Irak?
@@marcbeebee6969 Russian drivers, bro. lol People that were basically restricted from travel and owning vehicles since the invention of the automobile were suddenly unleashed behind the wheel. ROFL
Technically, neither was WWII. The peace treaty between the US and Japan wasn’t signed until September
I'd love to know what Russian students learn about Gorbachev, Glasnost, the Fall of the Berlin Wall, and the collapse of the Soviet state.
@@nathanowen1328we just skim over it really quick so it’s just a bunch of dates and nothing more because there’s too much focus on the middle ages and the romanovs (i graduated in 2018 but i doubt much has changed apart from the propaganda they added to the curriculum)
Oh Simon, you’ve fallen into the trap. The Delacroix painting ‘Liberty leading the People’ does not refer to THE French Revolution, but to A French Revolution (the one in July 1830). They had several, leading to the expression ‘the French are revolting.’
But in this case, they were also rebelling.
I’m 100% sure that Simon doesn’t edit these and did not put the image in the video
The French Have -ALWAYS- Been Revolting. . . . . Now They Are Rebelling!!
Simon has been very clear on his other channels, others write the script (Kevin in this case), others edit the video (Jennifer), he reads the script, pays the authors and editors, uploads the final product, keeps up the website, sends out merch, and handles all the business side of things.
Do you hear the people sing? Singing the song of French men.
The burning of the white house is a big aspect of the war of 1812 in American schools because it’s paired with the fact that the First Lady Dolly Madison was able to save the portrait of George Washington which is considered very patriotic. It’s probably one of the few facts about the war I still remember. 5:15
One lesser known fact was that they had to evacuate the White House shortly before as dinner was being served, so when the British arrived to ransack the White House and evidently birded it to the ground, they found dinner had already been set out on the table. So they decided to enjoy a good meal before burning the White House.
Then again we also burned Toronto to the ground as well when we invaded Canada.
Yep, his spin on how the war of 1812 is taught in the US is flawed.
A more interesting fact they should teach is that after the British occupied Washington a hurricane hit and forced them back out with wind rain and a large tornado. Definitely crazy timing.
Guys, it's not worth fighting another war of 1812 about... Math and maths are both valid abbreviations of mathematics. Just like color and colour, or meter and metre, or practice and practise, or aeon or eon, or airplane or aeroplane. The war of 1812 was really fought because of Aluminum vs Aluminium, but we were both wrong, it was originally Alumium.
Not gonna fight over it but I'll certainly argue over it. 🤪
@@teds8747 I'm Canadian and I've only ever known the laser spelling...
Isn't LASER an acronym?
@@trickygoose2 Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation.
@@jwadaowClearly LASER is the only acceptable spelling, as LAZER wouldn't make any sense.
The only thing I remember from the war of 1812 was that they burnt the White House.
And the capitol. When Americans get too lairy to Brits on 4th of July I remind them about this
That was a retaliation. The Americans snuck into Canada and torched York (present day Toronto) first.
@@teddypicker8799 With one exception. The commandant of the Marine Corps house was spared, out of respect for the actions of the US Marines defending the capitol.
Simon's grandfather burnt it single handedly, allegedly
same! I was gonna say, as an American, I think the _only_ thing I was taught about the war of 1812 was the Brits burned the white house LOL
I'm american and I've never seen the war of 1812 as an american victory. The US capital was burned to the ground, the US army lost most of its battles. The navy had a few one on one victories but was horribly outmatched, and math is a noun describing the whole of mathematics and doesn't need a multiplier to define it.
Actually, the US Navy was the one part of America that could claim victory in that war. The American Navy was horribly outmatched for sure. But better ships and better commanders gave them victory regardless. The US Navy was truly born in the War of 1812.
Plus, the royal navy stopped enslaving sailors. That is a victory...
It’s funny that you defend math being singular and then immediately say “mathematics”. Math and maths are just two different wats to shorten mathematics.
@@projectblack2462 The US was enslaving Africans in great numbers. Key was an anti-abolitionist slave owner from Maryland which was about 30% slave in 1814. His hypocritical song was not for the slaves. The British were welcoming escaped slaves on to their ships.
Uh, the US army did NOT lose most of its battles, actually. Might want to double check your information there.
As an American, I can say that the general consensus is that we're proud of the revolution, but it's water under the bridge. We don't have any animosity against the British nation and none of us judge any of you for the policies of George III. We consider the British to be brothers and very similar to ourselves.
I was in school in the 70s and 80s, and if it weren't for M*A*S*H on TV, I would have never even known that the Korean war happened.
When I was at school, it was really considered English vs English albeit English colonists, many of whom had strong English accents and cultural habits.
@@kathleengreer4639 I guess not everyone comes from a military family.
I think most people don't understand the abuses the British inflicted on the colonists back then. People just think it was about high taxes. And in that regard it wasn't tax rate, it was the lack of representation for those taxes. Something that was supposed to be our right as citizens of the empire.
Fun fact about the War of 1812. Americans invaded Toronto, then called York, and took a bunch of books from the library. A year later, the Americans again invaded York, and returned the books they borrowed from the library!
*hm*
But the late fees were a killer.
@@leisti they should have waited until the library held a grace day and forgave all late fees. 😜
a nice gesture. im surprised Americans are capable of that kind of thing
@@paddington1670 don't worry, before returning the books we used highlighters and coffee mugs on them
“We lost control of some rebellious colonies that would eventually become the world’s biggest superpower… No big deal. Just another Tuesday.”
*Chewsday
They didn't lose control of the US, nor did they stop collecting tax money from people in the US. The lie is much greater than most people realize. Find out why the corporation called "the UNITED STATES of AMERICA" was founded in 1871,,, the trail leads back to the lie.
The lack of coverage of the American Revolution in UK schools always came off as them coping with the lost by not talking about it.
@SEAZNDragon bro we had an empire that covered 1/4 of the world's landmass. Every 6 days some country somewhere celebrates their independence from us. Combine that with how long the history of the UK is and it just isn't a big deal for Brits.
When we look at the British Empire we look at the transatlantic slave trade and the British Raj and exploration. The American War of Independence is just unimportant to us
@@burtburtist* Toosday
I'm Canadian and I don't recall spending all that much time on the war of 1812. The only thing that comes to mind is the snickering we all did when we learned the white house had been burned down.
It's not taught much in America either. We tend to forget Canada was involved as a separate entity at all.
Here is what I was taught:
The White House is still blackened under the paint from the fire.
The Star Spangled Banner is about a battle in the war.
I believe England was mentioned.
As a Canadian I've tried to learn about the War of 1812 and everything I read I instantly forget because it's just so not relevant to anything. Like everything you could ever possibly need to know about the war can be written down on a pamphlet, I"m pretty sure 7th grade me could write more on the topic than adult me.The 7 years war/french and indian war is far far far more relevant to Canadians and far far far more interesting. It was basically world war zero, a global war, a war fought all across Canada and had direct consequences of Canada being formed.
@katethomas1519 The 7 Years War is more relevant to Americans too, and we merely a proxy in said war, versus an actual main combatant in The War of 1812.
Much of our elite troops, leaders, and strategies used on the Revolutionary War came from it. While the French were the deciding factor, they never would have helped if we didn't stand a chance.
Just pay closer attention to your coins. There are several depicting 1812 and its famous people. Or, get some chocolate lol
It's probably me, but the narration of many of the newer videos I've seen have really sped up.
I find myself needing to closed caption, which in itself is almost a practice in speed reading.
But I really enjoy this channel, so it's worth it.
Maybe you can try watching at .75 speed
@@brylawOr check to make sure you didn't accidentally set it to 1.25x or 1.5x. It's super annoying that when you change the speed for one video, YT remembers the change for all subsequent videos, even from different channels :(
Great Video! One thing that I find interesting though is that None of the Perspectives being taught are complete. And all of them contain a piece of the overall picture of what had happened. It makes it definitely worth looking at all of the stories to get a better and closer understanding of the Truth of all of those Events.
Well, except the Japanese history books concerning WWII. They just gloss over it all.
@@Ramschat Not too dissimilarly to Allied textbooks glossing over the Fire bombing of Dresden and Tokyo. Ie. We don't spend much time on our war crimes - why should they?
@@MrBrock314 They don't skim their war crimes, in Japan, they skim the whole war. A least in the UK (not sure about the other allies), they do cover the bad events, as well as the good events of the war.
You also omitted the Firebombing of the UK by Germany during WWII. For example, the small city of Coventry, had over 30,000 incendiary bombs dropped on it, alone.
@@Ramschatyou mean like how the American text books don't talk at all about the 2.5 million koreans that america murdered.
The 9/11 one is taught completely.
13:37 it's easy to forget that 9/11 happened over 20, not 10 years ago. it's quite unbelievable, to be honest, especially coming from someone born less than 4 four months after it happened.
Back in the 2000s, a document was found in the archives of the Japanese government where they talked about the possibility of being divided into North and South Japan, much like East and West Germany. They decided to surrender rather than let that happen. As for the schools teaching about WWII in Japan, it was unfortunately true while I taught there. Recently while teaching at a medical university in Japan, during a class on medical ethics, we discussed how the ethics developed from the atrocities in WWII, including those by Unit 731. They had no idea.
That doesn't make sense. Japan surrendered long before Germany was split into East and West in 1949, so how could the Japanese government have known about this in August of 1945?
@@quokkaw Germany was divided into four occupation zones before those occupations formalised into two sovereign states in 1949. It wouldn't be out of the question to assume Japan would be split the same way.
@@quokkaw Japan knew the USSR and knew that once the USSR took territory, they wouldn't give it back. As it was, the USSR was only able to take the 4 Kuril islands, which they still hold to this day.
@@DadCanInJapan Does your school ever teach about medical racism in Western countries, or do you just think it's a Japan thing?
@@SL16867 Skin as thin as rice paper.
Well done. From a guy who majored in history as well as professional educator for well over three decades. POV does color the teaching of history. Balance is important in portraying events accurately without shying from the more horrific events some country's leadership have perpetuated. We can only learn how not to repeat some of those dreadful mistakes when we thoughtfully examine past moments: both good and bad.
The best example of this in my mind is how the Glorious Revolution is taught in the UK and the Netherlands. To this day we’re taught the last successful invasion of England was 1066 and nobody has heard of 1688.
So true
And when they admit it was an invasion they claim the initiative for the English. The invention by 7 rather powerless lords, come over to become king, you need to bring a fleet twice the size of the Armada and 40.000 soldiers though. But Dutch parliament had already decided on the invasion an paid for the fleet and army, their oppointed stadtholder Willem III van Oranje feared to much opposition as a foreigner and demanded to be invited as one of many propaganda efforts.
The biggest political change in British history was a Dutch invasion for French reasons I'm afraid. Not that I learned that in Dutch schools, with the orange marches during the troubles in NI it was mostly ignored.
British colonies too learn about 1066 & the Magna Carta etc but nothing of the Dutch (at least thats' how it is in Australia & I assume the other colonies too)
@@mehere8038nothing about the Dutch or any other country. 😀
However 1688 should be in the British books because the Dutch invaded and put one of theirs on the English throne.
@@mehere8038 The British have a habit of appropriating other's history anyway, especially the good parts of course. Somehow everything magically originated with that very special people. But in the 17th century was rather backward, especially compared to the Dutch Republic.
Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcast had a great line about history that's taught in any school in any country. They should all be called "Here's why we're great and why everyone else sucks."
He should tell that to Germany, we spend a lot of time on the holocaust and how bad we are
@@Rubicola174 That's intense! In America it depends on what state you live in and what teacher you have when it comes to the American Civil War as it relates to slavery. Props to Germany for keeping it real!
Listen, here in America. . . (Silenced)
Haha😂 Juuuuuust kidding!
Naw, it's just that people from other countries aren't the only ones that were withheld correct, acurate, and true American history. Americans have been deprived of even their own knowledge of the very truth of the GENOCIDAL and barbaric "foundation" of the place we live today from the jump! We also never learned about China's devastating "Great leap forward" holocaust. Some b.s. truly how the gov. "refrains" from transparency and conveniently "complicates" things. Manipulation is a form of abuse. Lying and being omissive has never been trusted and those 10%ers greedy b.s. is all falling out of their fat ass cracks hahaha
British schools teach the bad and good things from our history, so that quote sounds very 'American', in it's viewpoint.
@@Thurgosh_OG Not really, the brutal history of the British empire is whitewashed, hence the stupid nostalgia and dislike of foreigners in England.
We also learn in France that the Russian invasion of Manchuria was a very important factor in the Japanese surrender. Keep in mind that one night of bombing in Tokyo killed 100.000 people in one night. The US had been bombing cities to the ground for over 6 months with huge casualties and damage without any sign that Japan wanted to surrender (just like Germany didn't). But when the USSR came to their doorstep, the Japanese basically had to chose between surrendering to the US or being carved up between two nations like Germany was.
Or another atomic bomb maybe?
We have the communications between the emperor and his generals and advisors. We know what brought them to that decision. Ignoring that is ignoring the primary sources and is just historical revisionism.
There is a good video on this topic by youtuber Shaun. He goes through the documents and personal diaries of US civilian and military leaders (almost all unanimously writing that the Atomic bomb was unnecessary) and the documents and proceedings of Japanese officials in regards to the USSR. Though I don't fully agree the atomic bombing played absolutely no part in it (it certainly did) but not to an extent. The Soviet invasion was far far more consequently for the Japanese leadership. At then end both played the role in getting them to surrender to the Americans (important note Americans) cause the alternate was worse (Though Soviets could not invade Hokkaido or Japanese main islands even the Soviet leadership knew this due to their experience in fighting for the Kurils which required months of US war aid such as Ships to do and was almost a bloody disaster). Yet the Japanese leadership didn't know that they feared a Soviet march to Tokyo ending with the Emperor and royal family getting the Romanov treatment. So both events played an important role (The destruction of Kuwatang Army and Machuko was a death blow to Japan in Asia). Although you could argue on how much the one or the other contributed.@@JayMuzquiz
This is the prevailing understanding as well in the US, at least at the college level. I have no idea if US high schools are still teaching that Japan surrendered because of the bomb, but they probably are. However, it was a ridiculous statement by Simon to say that Japan's surrender was due to the Soviet Army is a minority opinion. It is the standard opinion among historians and academics.
@@captbloodbeard Simon is known for reading off the script and being Westcentric in all his approachs to many topics. I happened to have this recommended knowing Japanese topic would be here. Alot of Westcentric approach to history.
Most people ive met in the US were taught that the whitehouse was burnt down.
Hence the importance given to a constitutional amendment making sure every citizen has a firearm so they can defend their country in case the English decide to invade again. Which is a very plausible thing to be so scared about, I'm sure.
@@tealkerberus748 and many more reasons
@@tealkerberus748 Nonsense, I've never heard even the craziest type in America make such a claim.
@@D.D.-ud9ztEh, usually it's Russia or China mentioned now. Or Mexico. Or the US. The US is afraid of the US because we have oil.
@@tealkerberus748 No, the firearms plus the "organized militias" business was much more about keeping down slave rebellions. They were known to happen every once in a while, including in Haiti just a few months before that Amendment was added.
Andrew Jackson fought at the Battle of New Orleans, not Battle of Orleans (with a French pronunciation)
Thank you, this drove me insane as well. I make it a habit of taking care to pronounce things as the natives would, regardless of how my own pronunciation might be.
Simon, it should be pronounced "New Orleens" or "New Orlins" or "Newawlins". lol
Not "AOURLEEEEON" ROFL
I think he confused Andrew Jackson with Joan of Arc. But then, Jackson seems to have had a god complex.
The Battle of Orleans.
Ahh yes, I too remember Andrew Jackson on the Beach of Normandy, gallantly dueling every person ally or enemy alike, and taking on Orleans single handedly on his way to Paris.
What a guy.
@@jonathanlindsey790 "Nawlins"
um I fought it was Joan of arc who fought at the battle of orleans 😅.
I'm Austrian and my history teacher was OBSESSED with WW2. We spent 4 years learning about not much else other than what happened during WW2 in Austria. When I asked why the Japanese sided with the Nazis, he couldn't even give me an answer. He also made us watch a really horrifying documentary with real footage from a concentration camp that definitely wasn't suitable for anybody under 18. We were like 16 or 17 at the time. It was all extremely detailed and I was bored of it pretty soon, especially since we also discussed the topic in other subjects.
The only time we were really taught anything about other countries was when we learned about Ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome and then briefly the French revolution. Oh yeah and we had like 2 lessons about what happened after WW2 in the entire world. So yeah, not a very rounded education overall.
That would be because Germans/Austrians are still wracked with guilt.
This is the reason that they have been "forgiven" in Europe, unlike the Japanese who are still hated in the east , as they deny anything happened.
@kevinshort3943 Japan doesn't deny anything already apologized and payed reparations which was a peace condition as in the SF treaty, not making self flagellation their religion is no excuse for lying
I'm Australian, I find it curious you have the same history teacher for 4 years. We change teachers every year, largely so as to avoid any potential for issues if we get a bad teacher in a particular subject - that was my experience anyway, I guess it's possible kids here at smaller schools could have different experiences
Uhh wtf? Was your teacher not given a curriculum? You can't teach the history of Austria by just talking about WWII.
@@longiusaescius2537
A once off thing beyond mosts living memory is not the same as being truly sorry.
They gloss over or ignore most of it in their history books, pretending it never happened.
You know what they say about those that forget their history are doomed to make the same mistakes again.
Simon Whistler taught me that English people say "Maths" instead of Math. Thank you Simon Whistler
But do they say algebras and calculuss?
@@Blinkerd00d Those bastards....
😅no we don’t, unless you found a real dumb American! So an American? Rimshot
@@Blinkerd00d No, because mathematics ends in an s and algebra doesn't, while calculus comes with s provided (though they might call it 'calcs'.
aluminium
I remember when one of my college professors told us how she went to Japan and she was in this WWII museum. When she got to the atomic bomb she felt guilty but the tour guide said “We deserved it for our actions.”
Japanese textbooks these days are much more clear about Japan's role in the war and what's portrayed in this video is not at all what's being taught and do talk to Japan's instigation and its war crimes.
I will say as an American the French Revolution IS more consequential historically than the American. Yes, in the long run the Rise of American Economics and Imperialsm defines the modern world, but for most of the 18th and 19th centuries the Fallout of the French Revolution and Napoleanic Wars would have global effects and directly lead to most of the problems that would result in both World Wars.
The thing about the French Revolution is that it was directly affected by the American Revolution. The American Revolution brought the idea of liberty and freedom out of simply scholars and into the general public. It also gave a president that these ideas can be fought and won as the American were undoubtedly the underdogs in their fight. And look past psychology, the economic bankruptcy that cause the French Revolution was due to France’s involvement in the American Revolution. The American Revolution may not have affected the way the revolution turned out, but it definitely played a huge part in causing it. It’s worth noting that two of the men who wrote the French Declaration of Independence was Thomas Jefferson (the man who wrote the American Decloration of Independence) Marque de Lafayette who was a major American general who was French. Perhaps the French Revolution is more well known outside the Americas as I am an American, but I do know that the American revolution directly influenced and inspired the French Revolution, the Haitian Revolution and all the Latin American Revolutions.
Another fun fact is that the original North Vietnam Declaration of independence makes direct reference to the American Declaration of Independence.
@@cat5lover862well said
@@cat5lover862 sure everything exists in the context of what came before. The question is which events merit much more than a setting the stage paragraph when teaching history in a limited amount of time.
I know that when I was growing up France’s involvement in the American Revolution besides spending lots of money was downplayed in significance. And maybe it is okay to ignore the other fronts the British were fighting on at the same time in the way we do. I think the fact that they were fighting in other places in the world and against other countries was a single sentence when I was taught it.
If you look at the 9/11 example events at the time and more now the build up to the attacks is not often taught to Americans. I knew it because my family taught me but almost all my peers and the prevailing national narrative at the time and since was boiled down to “because they hate freedom”. The fallout from the patriot act and the misleading of the people into support of the Iraq war was largely unspoken of and still probably is. We still tend to speak of it without the context of bombing civilians and disappearing people into torture prisons.
The US tends to teach its history very nationalistically. If you go to school in Texas then Mexico becomes the villains in their origin story. Rather than Americans continuing our habit of expansion by settlement, justifying protecting those settlers, then annexation of the land and removal of the non Americans living there.
@@LC-sc3en I with start this by saying that I grew up with Pennsylvania education system. Not that overall important but the revolution and the civil war were local history to my area.
I agree that context matters. That’s why when learning about the American Revolution you start with the English Civil War, then to the era of Columbus and the Dutch and Swedish Traders and the Native Americans, then to the British colonies, then to the French And Indian War( the 7 years war for those outside America though the French and Indian war was the North American front, it was the reason the war happened and was started 2 years prior to the 7 years war lasting 9 years. It was started by English colonialists. A very Famous person named George Washington fought in some of the early battles.) Only by learning all of this, can you truly understand why Locke and Common Sense were so popular in America and where the phrase “taxation without representation” comes from. They were inciting English law that they believed was garented to them by the colonies founding documents.
Yes Frace played a part in the American Revolution, but you must remember that the alliance was only signed in 1778 which is 3 years after the war started and only 3 years before it ends in terms of major battles. I don’t claim that the French didn’t help, but in the early years it was Americans who won at Sarotoga and Trenton. As in the famous crossing of the Delaware Trenton. And just so we are on the same page, I am currently doing a reaserch paper on Valley Forge for college right now so the research is fresh in my memory.
Also, the fact on the British fighting multiple fronts during the war and so could not contribute much troops to the war is a blatant lie and misconceptions. The fronts you are refering to are the French, Dutch and Spanish. As stated before, the French joined the revolution in 1778 and actively participated on the American front like at Yorktown. The biggest asset the French brought was there navy as America had privateers not a navy. I don’t argue that, though if you want to look at interesting American Revolution navy stories look up John Paul Jones or the Turtle (an actual early Submarine). Moving on to Spain, the Spanish joined the war after the French and open up a front along the west but this was already after the Americans have taking back Philly and the British honestly lost their chance of winning the war. Yes by 1778 the British were losing, not battles but the overall war of minds and morale. And finally the Dutch, who only participated in a trade war over the right to American trade. While this may have affected the British in the later part of the war, honestly it is simply not as instrumental as people make it out to be. All of these wars were concluded by the Treaty of Paris of 1783, as in the treaty that ended the American Revolution.
Yes there are exasperations on the American Perspective of the war. But that’s to be expected with an underdog story such as the Americans in it because they were the underdogs. They should not have won in the eyes of the British at that time. It’s no wonder that 3 times the head British general either resigned or got replaced in the Americas as their performance was considered back home as underwhelming.
I think that all countries teach their history nationalistic, America is not the exception. But that doesn’t mean that the bad parts aren’t taught. I was lucky to have amazing history teachers. And they made sure to go over the bad stuff just like the good stuff. We learned about the trail of tears, the way the US government would break treaties with the Native tribes. I had a play in 7th grade where we compared Pocahontas’ real story to the Disney story. That was part of our ciriculam in 7th and 8th grade. We learned about resident schools which are absolutely terrible for Indians. The motto was “take the Indian out of the man”. For my personal education, we went over the bad stuff America did which isn’t something that every country does. The ones I can directly point to are Japan and China. This the entire point the video is making. I can’t speak for Texas as I don’t live in Texas nor experienced their education. Maybe it’s different there. I also don’t feel qualified to talk about 9/11. I don’t necessarily disagree on you on that, the only thing I would point out is that 9/11 is recent history. That comes with a lot more complications as the people teaching it are people who have experienced it and the effects of it. That’s honestly a different topic, that you’re not wrong about.
Moving back to the American Revolution
I think the thing is that you can’t directly compare events, both the American and French Revolution had impacts. The world would definitely be different without either one. But both taking both in account you can see where the age of revolutions begins and what it starts to lead into. Maybe the ‘age of revolution’ isn’t a true age in historians, especially since I’m not claiming to be one, I studying to be a meteorologist, history is a hobby and passion for me. But I think it’s important to study both of them.
If you want a good book on Valley Forge that tries to disprove myths about it but not out of its way, take a look at “the Valley Forge Winter” by Wayne Bodle. It’s an interesting read and I’m finding it very helpful for my paper.
Please ignore my spelling as I am typing this on phone.
Yes, the fallout had greater global effects, but that's because the French took so many tries to get it right.
I guess it's arguable, but which is more important, a singular successful revolution that has stood the test of time and inspired many others? Or a bunch of ultimately failed revolutions that kept causing nasty wars until France finally settled down...only to wind up in the middle of a couple of World Wars?
Canadian-French here. We barely talked about the war of 1812. To put it directly, it was a war between two foreign nations from our point of view and we are taught that our ancestors didn’t care much about it.
You just described yourself as having French heritage, as well as Canadian. The cause of the war was ultimately the fault of the megalomaniac Napoleon, who ultimately lost. Maybe that is why you are not taught about it, as in my experience Bonaparte is adored as a hero by many of you Frenchie lot.
@@SimonsvidsHow did Napoleon start the war of 1812? He was already at war with most of Europe at that time.
@@Simonsvidsus French Canadians aren't taught much about Napoleon because guess what: he wasn't our leader, and had very little to do with Canada. Also grouping up French-Canadians with French people is as misguided as grouping up Americans with English people, just because they speak the same language that doesn't make them the same nationality or same (albeit similar) culture.
The war of 1812 is widely considered a proxy of the real wars in Europe at the time. @@WLDB
@@Jezus42 Wrong. The US during the napoleonic war era fought its own conflicts against both revolutionary france AND the UK(Both over interception of our merchant ships and impressment of our sailors). There was no 'proxy' involved, as the US wasn't friendly towards or receiving significant aid from either side.
War of 1812? Isn't that when Napoleon got kicked out of Russia?
It's more Russia invaded France before the Russian reversal joke existed.
There were multiple theaters to the War of 1812. American snuck attack Canada (a colony in the British Empire at the time) assuming the British were busy with Napoleon. They were right for the most part but got their asses handed to them anyway by the locals.
When Canada kicked USA's ass!!!!
i know, i know.
@paddington1670 good on Canada.
I'm British, so my comment was more because our history classes for that year are much more focused on Napoleon than the American world. But always good to hear about Canadian success.
From what I’ve gathered, the British Empire was trying to fight off Napoleon taking over Europe, HOWEVER they bullied American sea vessels, kidnapped the sailors and declared they were fighting for the British. Parliament was trying to fix the situation but by then it was too late as while there was a mix support of war in the American congress, it was enough to say it was a declaration of war and tried to convince the Canadians to join. The Canadians refused, the Americans burned down their towns and fortresses, in retaliation the British sent some officers to aid the Canadians that together match down the New England region taking over Washington and burning the city. They tried to continue this force further in the US, but they kept getting retaliation, either rebuffed their forces (Fort McHenry) or deal with defeats from certain battles like the Battle of New Orleans.
Honestly it was a back and forth wins and loses on both sides that finally the British Parliament and the Americans were able to settle to back out and return the lands to their original civilizations. The Americans worked on rebuilding the country and heading west, and the British focused more at the matters of Napoleon taking over Europe and Africa. Canada meanwhile enshrines the whole event as if it is a culture foundation to brag about.
Speaking as a history student, I already know that decades before the era of burdensome taxes by the British upon the American colonies 0:24; we learned that following that it wasn’t just America that was seeing raised taxes on even imported goods. Much of the European empire had begun to feel the sting of these new taxes in the fallout of the seven years war. A war that the European nation borrowed heavily from the American colonial financial institutions to fund. As a matter of fact as far as I remember I believe about 2/3 of the war got funded from American loans. And the empire began imposing taxes upon the colonies with the logic that they had contributed just as much if not more to the war effort. By their logic America should be paying their fair share for funding the war when it was really the American banks who were owed. This as well as a lesser known stamp act along with the famous tea tax that resulted in the Boston tea party was America reacting as though they had been slapped in the face on their part of the entire exchange and that it was the crown that needed to be repaying the Colonies for the outstanding loans that funded the seven years war.
Kind of like an older brother going "Hey can I borrow $100 to take a girl on a nice date, I will pay you back $120 . . . Hey you know how I help you with your homework, you need to pay me $10 a week now".
When I was in High school in the early 70's I started each year learning about the Magna Carta of 1215 and made it through WW1.Year after year. Never made it to WW2. .
very similar. I was in school in the 80's - always made it to WWII, never past. Of course the Cold War hadn't ended yet, so might have been harder to teach.
We managed to miss Vietnam, Korea, WWI, and the Cold War. We did cover hippies and the Space Race. Priorities.
I am an early Millenial. Reading "The Hunt for Red October" recreationally in high school may have been my introduction to the Cold War.
@user-dg9pu4pe9d my American history classes were the American Revolution to WW1 for one semester then WW1 to present which when I graduated was 1990.
I went to school in the ‘80s. We never made it to the Cold War.
0:50 - Chapter 1 - The american revolution in england
3:45 - Chapter 2 - The war of 1812 in Canada
7:20 - Chapter 3 - WWII in Japan
10:25 - Chapter 4 - 09/11 all around the world
Yesterday, I learned that my great great great great grandfather was killed in a particularly awful battle during the American revolution, the "Wyoming Massacre." This happened in Pennsylvania in 1778.
I heard a chef who also like history said: history is not written by does who wins, is written by those who write things.... and thats the most accurate definition I ever heard.
Correct. Case in point: Vietnam. The people writing that the US lost are the North Vietnamese, who conquered South Vietnam two years after the Treaty, and American hating journalists and historians that were rightfully sick of the war, but wanted to paint America as losers.
It was over 30years ago but I'm pretty sure I didn't spend 4 months of education on the War of 1812. I vaguely remember more time being spent on the exploration of Canada and more focus on how the territories evolved over time and then confederation.
I was about to post similar. Middle and high school was in the 80s and for sure the War of 1812 was one day, maybe two. We were taught far more about the history of The Hudson Bay Company than pretty much any other Canadian focused topics.
I agree. We did learn about the war and the indigenous peoples huge contributions and that we won. But who would want to keep the south side of the strait (river) now known as the city of Detroit.
I disagree. War of 1812 was a tediously long part of history class at my school in southern Ontario. It's obviously not uniform, but whatever he's talking about in this video is definitely a reference to the curriculum found in schools like mine.
Did you learn about the part where Britain handed you your independence for being good little boys and girls as long as you continued to serve as a proxy state? ROFL
Man, I can't even recall what was taught to me back in the bad old days of highschool (79-83). I know I had a year of American History, but a lot of it was glossed over.
We were taught G. Washington rode on the back of a Velociraptor (native species to United States) straight into the battle wielding two AR-15s
*Shirtless and smoking a cigar. You forgot those key historical points.
That's how Washington captured the airports.
@@mythikry yes my bad, been a while since i took American history
A museum I visited in China also gave the USSR significant credit for beating Japan. The way they put it, it was years-long Chinese resistance that wore down Japan, and then, once Stalin mentioned invading Japanese-held territory on top of this, Japan saw the writing on the wall, and surrendered. The bombs from the US were not even mentioned, and it was implied that a verbal declaration of intent from USSR was the nail in the coffin, without mention of any Soviet fighting. I think this was at the big museum in Nanjing, though it might've been one in Shenyang.
The Soviet's contributions to WWII has been vastly understated by the US. It's doubtful that the US would have won either theater without their massive sacrifices.
@@SmallSpoonBrigadeAnd vastly overstated by everyone who hates the US. It’s ok, we’re used to it.
We’d have done just fine without the Soviets who didn’t land at Normandy or Tarawa.
@@SmallSpoonBrigade You might have a point in Europe, although people forget the massive amounts of aid the US provided the Russians that helped them stay in the fight with Germany. After the war the Soviets tried to rewrite it so that all the material, munitions, and food was Russian made. But they knew what SPAM was.
For the Pacific, the Russian contribution was negligible. Japan had Germany to thank for removing the Soviet threat from their region for most of the war. The real threat from the Soviets at the end was their assault on the Japanese army on the mainland. The Soviets had little hope of invading the Japanese main islands. The Soviets had never attempted an amphibious invasion on any real scale that could threaten Japan. Even their invasion of the Kuril Islands was small, blundering, they lacked logistical support, and all of their invasion boats had to be provided by the US.
One of the best history classes I had in public middle school was a course on American history from other countries. Each chapter in the textbook was from a different perspective. I was surprised that the UK history books covered the American Revolution as a "brief skirmish" that became too expensive to maintain, so letting the colonies go was the better choice than to keep engaging in battles with the colonists
I'm an American, and I wasn't taught that the War of 1812 was an American victory or a point of national pride. The White House was burnt down. We were taught the issues both sides had with the other and it was suggested that the US were the inciting belligerents. I've certainly learned more about it since public school, but it wasn't too far off.
It ended the impressment so it was successful in that regard.
@@microseism536exactly
I'm assuming that neither Simon, nor the writer of today's episode, has heard of the 1707 Act of Union? More often than not, when Simon says "England" people should probably just assume that he should have said "Great Britain" or (if referring to events after 1801) "The United Kingdom".
Perhaps this just emphasises the truth of the episode title.
Yeah, but to a lot of the world (and a lot of the British people I know personally) it's just "England". Just like we're called "America" by much of the world when most people in the US actually call it "The U.S." or "The United States". Only drunks and rednecks call it "Murica" here. lol
Or more likely he says England because despite it technically being a unification of several kingdoms, one kingdom tended to be a little more 'equal' than the others. There is no denying that the English were calling the shots.
England, the UK, and Great Britain are basically used interchangeably in the US. I'm intellectually aware there's a difference, but still do this. Probably a lot of Americans are unaware entirely.
@@philtackett5149 - is there anything you don't display ignorance of? you barely know about your own history but f*ck me, you even try to ignorantly lecture people about their own countries!
And Education is a devolution power in the UK. The Scottish education system is different from the English. So what he is saying is correct.
The Pilipino-American War: Practically if not literally absent from most middle/high school U.S. textbooks, I can't even imagine how it's covered in the Philippines.
Heck, they now ignore their actual date of independence in the aftermath of World War 2 in favor of their declared date of independence from the P-A War, despite losing that war and that declaration being ultimately meaningless from a practical standpoint.
As a Greek-Romanian who has been enrolled in Romanian, Greek and even US history course curiculums, this is all very familiar and interesting.
One experience tangential to this topic: Was at a conference with students from Turkey and Greece and was talking about the way contemporary news are reported (live history, so to speak) about the geopolitical agean sea tensions. From a Greek perspective Turkey is the major rival, and essentially the primary Greek security concern, but from the Turkish perspective, things were not symmetrical. The Turks attitude was similar to how this video described the British perspetive on the US war of independence: Turkey essentially has a larger security pie with concerns in other places and Greek-Turkish relations are not as large a portion of that pie of concerns.
It was interesting to live the moment when you realize the thing the media constantly plays up in your info-bubble, is not as big of a deal for the other party's media-sphere.
The colonists weren't against paying taxes, they just wanted a say in the matter in parliament as British citizens. Further, what i learned in elementary school was just how many years the situation when on for, including almost a year of open fighting, before the colonists finally decided independence was the only option left.
LOOK! The British defeated the French in 1759 which unlocked much for westward expansion. The revolutionary "heroes" were mostly small minded slave owners who just did not want pay for a war that did more than their silly revolution never accomplished. As a Canadian I am proud of our history and our accomplishments. We are still a monarchy and one of the most successful democracies on this planet.
@@cstrick You're America's hat.
I've always been told - and have no reason not to believe it - the Thirteen Colonies were chafing under the treaties the British government had made with the natives, wanting the land for themselves. Rebelling and renouncing those treaties was the fastest way to that.
I'm told in Mongolia Genghis Khan is a national hero and portrayed as largely benevolent. There are multiple statues of him including a huge one. In Brazil students are taught a Brazilian, Alberto Santos-Dumont, invented the airplane.
Yeah, there’s quite a lot of nationalistic fake history in countries all around the world. The French like to claim they invented republicanism, and many of my own countrymen like to pretend that Henry Ford invented the automobile. The Belgians still pretend that King Leopold was anything but a monster and the Dutch and British both still have a rose-colored view their respective empires.
'Genghis Khan' is a bad spelling carried on through inertia by lazy Westerners. I learned outside of school that the modern Mongolian spelling is 'Chinggis Khaan'.
Alberto Santos-Dumont did invent one of the first powered heavier-than-air airships. This was Nov 1906.
The airplane is a different machine and the first successful flight was the Wright brothers in 1903.
So, Brazil is just using the wrong word but they're right that Santos-Dumont is an important character in the history of powered flight.
@@MrBrock314 Ah, that's interesting. One of the issues that comes up with those sorts of things is that it's not always obvious at what point you can say that something has been invented. Often it comes down to the person that comes up with a practical solution rather than the first one to do whatever it is.
Bro that is insane the level of erasure
Funny thing about the War of 1812 and Canada- when we visited Quebec, they never missed a chance to remind us that the US was the only country to ever attack Canada.
National policy for a long time was to invade canada if ever attackedagain by the british.
A lot of that is due... to the US. No one, not even the Chinese, would consider invading Canada with the US just across the border. Better to be good allies than stand alone.
To be fair, at that point what is today Canada was still part of Great Britain, so we didn’t attack Canada either.
US was just making sure Canada kept their Canadian geese airforce at bay.😅
/j
@@michaelimbesi2314 You did - Lower Canada and Upper Canada were the names of Quebec and Ontario.
It is kind of interesting as an American to think of how during the start of the US as a nation and get into the early 1800s, we pretty much gloss over the fact that Napoleon kept coming into power and launching these massive wars across the entire European continent for over a decade.
Yeah... I never learned about the American Revolution in school in the UK. A lot of the history I learned had to do with all the people who tried to invade Britain (which happened surprisingly frequently when ya think about it.) Not surprising that most countries' history teaching focusses on those countries.
That’s because the US kicking out Britain was only one of about 100 different colonies that did that over the years.
@@That.Guy. And YET... none of those others rose to real world prominence. Most just became vassals of some other state afterward.
Or like Canada, who still like to pretend they're British. lol
@@That.Guy.the only reason the us isn't a colony now is because England was to busy with more important things like ending the slave trade, fighting the french, Spanish, Dutch and probably a couple of others, thank them, the us wouldn't be there without them🤣😂🤣
@@JikokuKage Not remotely true. Before the French ever got involved the US had already forced the surrender of a full British army at Saratoga. And even at Yorktown, where the French made their most valuable battlefield contribution, the US contingent of the allied army was larger than the French contingent(Though the french navy definitely played a critical role). You really should call up your old history teachers and ask them why they failed you by repeating historically inaccurate tropes like "The only reason the US exists was France" when for the majority of the war the US fought alone. The first French troops to arrive in the colonies to aid the Continental army showed up in 1780. The war started in 1775. We captured our first British ARMY in 1777. The war ended in 1781(effectively - technically the treaty wasn't signed until 1783 but there was no more major fighting after Yorktown.) Out of six years of war the French only fought for one, and Yorktown was the ONLY major battle they fought in(Granted, it was an important one). Feel free to fact check any of this if you think I'm lying.
I could see how the UK/US wars would be minimized in UK history, US barely has to cover several hundred years to cover the recorded history of North America, UK has so much more to cover. Plus a big part of why it gets covered in US is that is the transition between separate colonies, to being the current nation, and a fair amount of our still relevant federal institutions were founded in that period or shortly after.
I learned about JFK's affair with Marilyn Monroe from an American History class at an English-speaking school in Lithuania...
They didn't cover that in any of my USA history classes *in America* 😂
We talked about it when i was in high school
he had a lot of affairs but not with Marylin Monroe. so they probably didn't cover it because it didn't happen
It was sort of tabloid common knowledge in the US, and pretty unimportant in the overall scheme of American History.
Why would that nonsense be taught as history in ANY class?
Trying to figure out why that would be taught. It was inconsequential.
Because it's not particularly important. Lots of people have affairs.
The Soviet campaign did heavily impact Japans decision to surrender. It finally kicked the leg out from the under the Japanese Army blustering position and revealed just how detached from reality they were. They spent more time talking about the situation in Manchuria than they did discussing Hiroshima. Which makes sense the US had already been destroying whole cities with regular bombs, switching to nukes didn't change that reality. Though even then it still took the Emperor casting essentially a tie breaking vote to force a surrender. Whole situation was just crazy.
That's the point many Americans don't seem to understand.
To the Japanese, it doesn't matter if 1 plane or 10,000 planes are used when a city is eradicated. So there is little reason to believe that would have cared very much about the atomic bombs.
Yeah the army was refusing to surrender hoping to hold on to main land territories, and didn't agree to surrender until the Russians invaded. The navy and airforce was dead and gone, and the Emperor wanted to surrender, but Japan was not a cohesive state at the time, and had gotten into the war with China because Army wanted it and disobeyed a direct order not to invade. And got in to the war with the US because the navy wanted it or it would stop supporting the army. So they needed to army to agree to surrender to be able to surrender.
That's completely ridiculous. They'd been fighting in Manchuria for FOURTEEN YEARS at that point, and it wasn't part of Japan. Just a source of resources important to them. But you would have us believe that Russia piling on there terrified them more than having two of their own cities vaporized by single bombs right out of science fiction. Seriously. Sell me a pound of whatever it is you're smoking. Must be amazing.
Yeah, it was pretty ridiculous for Simon to say that pretty much no one agrees that the decision to surrender was due to the Soviets, when that is the prevailing understanding in academia in the US.
It gets fairly complicated. I do think that the second nuclear bomb probably wouldn't have happened if there had been better communication, because the surrender would have taken longer had it been the cause. Also, the US had already leveled Tokyo.
I do think that the Soviets probably did have more of an impact on the Imperial Japanese surrendering when they did than the US educational system was teaching when I was in highschool though because even with the nukes, the war could have gone on for quite some time just due to how spread out the Japanese Empire was and that there was such a limited supply of nukes.
One slight addition to the U.S. view on the War of 1812 that tends not to get brought up in schools: a side effect of it happening was that as soon as it was over, the United States was finally through with dealing with the Barbary pirates (excepting Morocco, who never broke their early peace treaty, everybody took advantage of the conflict to go right back to raiding American vessels) and did something about it via what turned out afterwords to be gunboat diplomacy. This proved a first domino that ended them as a threat to many smaller nations who didn't enjoy the ability England, France, and Spain shared to pay those guys off and actually make it stick. There was a significant victory by America that came about due to the war; it just wasn't part of the war itself.
Native U.S. senior citizen here. The War of 1812 was a minor skirmish in the closing months of the Napoleonic Wars. I have idly speculated on the outcome had Britain not been distracted and thus been able to bring its entire navy and army to bear against my ancestors. It’s possible we could have been forcibly reintegrated into the British Empire and I would be a British Citizen.
"and I would be a British Citizen."
No you wouldn't.
Most likely the US and Canada would be one country, (that like Canada) would have become a Dominion, then an independent country and member of the Common wealth.
You would be better off with decent health care etc, and the world would be better off, as nuts like GW and the Orange idiot wouldn't get anywhere near power.
What a pity things didn't turn out that way!
Are you saying the Americans were kinder to your people than the British?
But the natives engaged in things like cannibalism, how could a culture like that integrate? These people operate on different values.
It wasn't a minor skirmish, nor was it during the closing months. It lasted the full 3 years and thousands of people died.
French Canadian here, and we did not spend months on the war of 1812. Maybe a few classes, but nothing more, but we're probably very biased. :p
It would be that "French" part in "French Canadian". lol
I'm betting things have been different when teaching history in Quebec vs Ontario for example.
@@jonathanlindsey790 I don't know about how they taught it in Quebec, only in Ontario.
@@Xsis_Vorok Québécois here (of the French persuasion). Secondary school 77-83. I honestly don’t remember 1812 being mentioned at all; I definitely would remember if we did (proud nerd here). We went from Plaines d’Abraham to the confederation in 1867.
Ontario teacher here, war of 1812 is taught in Grade 7 but we definitely don’t spend months on it.
What about the French and Indian war? I would imagine you spent a lot of time on that.
Nobody in America EVER refers to the War of 1812 as the second American Revolution. Nobody. Ever.
My history teacher did. He said it was, in essence, the Second American Revolution. Because had we lost we likely would have fallen back under British rule. But it's more common to hear the Civil War taught as the Second War of Independence, especially if you went to school in the South.
@@brandontyler1754If a southern history teacher is telling kids that, they should lose their license to teach.
@@justinb864 If any teacher is teaching it that way they should. Wait do we license them in the first place? Hmm
Anyway yeah never heard EITHER of them referred that way.
@@justinb864 I live in Tennessee. When I was in both elementary and high school, our right-wing redneck history teachers taught us that the Civil War had almost nothing to do with slavery, and that during segregation most of “the blacks” were on board for keeping segregation in place just as most of white Americans were. I wish I was making that up, but that’s what we were taught. As with everything else in the South, the real enemy is Liberals/Progressives.
@@justinb864They are not wrong though. Never heard it said that way, but yeah.
Math vs maths just like aluminum vs aluminium, mom vs mum, cookies vs biscuits, biscuits vs biscuits. Just proves geography has a major role in changes to words.
We could say “maths” just fine. But why would we? The contraction “math” already incorporates the “s” just as it does all the other letters in “mathematics” after the “h”.
By jove, you're right old man! ROFL
What is it a contraction?
From 1818 until 1911, both sides of the Pond used "math" as an abbreviation for mathematics. The Brits changed it to "maths" in 1911. Americans notoriously don't listen to the King or Queen anymore, so they said, "You can take your MISPRONUNCIATION and shove it up your arse." Grammatically, "math" is a singular word, which makes sense. "Maths" in British English is also treated as a singular word, which causes grammatical confusion. "Maths is my favorite subject." (When an etymology nerd enters the chat, you get a history lesson and English lesson combined.)
@@rhov-anion Huh, I'd been under the impression that "math" was like "fish" and "sheep", it was a word that represents both the singular and the plural.
@@rhov-anion Just like soccer was originally what just about everyone called the game since the 1800s, short for "association football." It stayed that way until the 1960s when "football" became more common in Britain.
Laura SEE-cord! SEE-cord. She's considered the Sarah Conor of Canadian history.
Thank you. I was going to leave a comment but you got here first.
So a fictional character in a series of movies?
Also we have a chocolate company named after her
@@BTM666-t7r No, a female badass who prevented the destruction of an entire nation.
She fought a robot from the future!?
For the war of 1812, it’s commonly believed that Canada burned down the white house despite it being British soldiers who did it.
The reason why is simple, Canada was British at the time so those were seen as OUR soldiers, as well as many of those soldier later settling down and starting families in Canada.
Therefore, Canadians say we did it, while the US and UK says Britain did it.
Duke of Wellingtons fleet and foot regiment aka royal marines
@@davidmarlow3624 yes, but as Canada was a part of Britain, we saw those soldiers as OUR soldiers, some of which settled in Canada later on.
Remember, this was during a period where Canadians were a part of Britain and didn’t yet have our own independent identity.
It wouldn’t have been much different than a Brit from England, A Brit from Wales, or a Brit from Scotland. Canadians were just Brits from Canada
There was no distinction between Canadians and other subjects of the British Empire at the time. Every soldier in Canada was viewed as a British soldier. Therefore, you're not wrong, the British Empire burned down the White House in retaliation for the sacking and burning of York, now Toronto. This by extension includes Canada. And as far as I know, there were British soldiers from Canada involved in said burning.
Canada was Britain.
Well said and a point I've tried to make many times..canadians have a very fuzzy view of this history because of this..and many don't know enough of our history to realize the lines are extremely blurred
As a Canadian, I can assure you that we did not spend months learning about the War of 1812. In fact, I just learned more about it from this video than I ever did in school.
I'm 18, so I'm pretty fresh out of the American public school system. My class touched on the war of 1812 maybe once for 5 minutes in all the 13 years I had history classes. We learned almost nothing about Europe from the middle of the Roman empire until WWI, with just a pit stop to talk about the black plague. We learned nothing about Asia and Africa outside of Mesopotamia. We did have a guest come in and talk briefly about Chinese culture and some very vague history for a week one year. The only time we learned about South America was when my favorite teacher of all time went off-sylabus to talk about the repercussions of capitalist dogma during the cold war and the atrocities committed in the name of cheap bananas. The best history lessons I got (aside from our state-mandated local indigenous history and some interesting town stuff our school board selected with help from local activists and amateur historians) was when my series of awesome history teachers would go off-curriculum and do a deep dive into less nationalistic topics. My 6th grade teacher had us write narratives and make board games based in ancient civilizations, my 7th grade teacher taught us CRT and let us kead sociopolitical debates all class if something on our daily news show caught our attention, and in my sophomore year, my teacher had us watch Forrest Gump and do an analysis of Vietnam war songs, we studied the Kent State murders and the red scare. Those were our most important lessons, the ones that reminded us to question what we're taught and to try to hold our government accountable and not to forget or gloss over their spotty history. Because other than what I mentioned, every lesson for 13 years was about the American revolution and all of its glory (with textbooks ignoring the hypocrisy and distracting us from the slavery with Hamilton songs), with some lessons on our heroic victories in WWI & WWII, totally ignoring any war crimes possibly committed by us during the process. But I had every other year focus entirely on our revolutionary war, so much so that the civil war was an afterthought, and it was only because if great teachers that Westward Expansion had any criticism attached to it.
Our country needs to get its sh!t together, Germany style, because we're already repeating the past.
Also, we literally never talked about the war in the middle east except when we watched the news in 7th and Mr. A encouraged us to break it down, especially since many students had emigrated from those war-torn regions.
I learned at school that the last time England was invaded was in 1688, by the Dutch. It was a successful "cold war" involving spies, economic power, trade routes, and diplomatic opportunity. Effectively, the Dutch William of Orange sat on the throne and influenced the drafting of the English Bill of Rights. However, my friends from England found this outrageous, insisting that the last time they were invaded was in 1066, and that the Dutch were "invited" to take the throne.
The teacher explained that William of Orange decided to call his taking of the throne a ‘Glorious Revolution,’ refusing to label it an invasion. He used the word ‘glorious’ because that is what he exclaimed when the wind changed, allowing his ship to easily sail into London, and that is why he put it into history.
Not even the French coming over in 1216 to take the crown from King John, an invasion that ended quickly when John died and his son provided a better alternative to a French prince.
Like the immortalisation of the founding fathers and the American war of independence in the US, the Norman conquest of England in 1066 has somehow been ingrained as the "last invasion" in English, and then later British, history as a symbol of national pride and what not. The reason? Possibly because the accounts that claimed it to be so we're written soon thereafter. But there is an entire list of times England, and later Britain, were invaded following 1066... And there were a lot of them - including the "glorious revolution". However, the narrative to glorify 1066 as "the last invasion" usually comes with an asterisk which states *Last successful longterm invasion of England/Britain/British territories - because heaven forbid mentioning the occupation of the Falklands by Argentina, or the occupation of the channel islands by German forces during world war 2, or the multiple french invasions during the 13-14th centuries, or the failed french invasion of Wales during the Napoleonic wars. Heck, many of the recorded invasions get brushed away with statements such as "well the anarchy was an English civil war... So Matilda and Henry the ii were defacto English, so it doesn't count" or "well the Scottish invasions of northern England don't count because we're all British" ignoring the fact that "were all British" because England would invade Wales, Scotland and Ireland on multiple occasions (but we don't count those invasions because ummmm 1066).
The whole "the Dutch were invited" justification for keeping 1066 runs foul when you ask the question - well what was King James II/VII thought on the matter? Was the King consulted regarding this invitation for someone to usurp his throne? Another justification for not counting the "glorious revolution" is typically the excuse that no blood was shed because of it... Ignoring the fact that fighting did break out in the Scottish Highlands as a result, between those clans that supported James and those that didn't - laying the foundations for the two Jacobite risings which would see Jacobite forces invade northern England (and parts of Scotland) from highland strongholds in the north.
I think that's right. It was the last successful invasion of Britain by a foreign power, albeit with the cooperation and collusion of many in the British aristocracy and parliament. If it had failed it would have been known as the Dutch treason
and in Ireland you wouldn't go around wearing orange.
Except for a guy named John Paul jones who had the British fleeing in panic from the coasts in the 1770s. lol
Actually, Russian textbooks claiming responsibility for Japan's surrender does make sense when you remember the long-standing fued between Russia and Japan at the time.
Well, as far as I remember my history classes back in 90's there were hardly anything about Manchuria, but there was something about nuclear bombings for sure. We were pretty much concentrated on the Eastern front for obvious reasons.
And come to think of it - 9/11 happened just on my first non-school September, watched it live. And you can't forget things like that one.
Kudos from Russia. Thanks for your work.
@Inetman If I'm remembering correctly from various UA-cam history tidbits, there were several 'confrontations' between Soviet military forces and Imperial Japanese forces before WWII happened. None of them were more than a skirmish, and it wasn't always actual military forces on both sides of the encounters, but it did happen several times and never with a definite overall victor. So, claiming to be the force that convinced Imperial Japan to surrender gives them a rather absolute victory to claim, even if it was the American forces the Japanese forces surrendered to.
growing up in Moscow in the mid-late 80s, when i got to the US in 89 i was very surprised to learn that Japan was involvedin ww2. all we learned was that the great patriotic war was against the germans (and italians finns and romanians helped them) the pacific theater was not even an afterthought at all
Annnnnnd..... communist propaganda. Never forget that little angle.
@jonathanlindsey790 Strange. I have such a strong love of a free market that no-one else has ever called me a communist. Are you sure you actually understood what you read? Or even that you have a grasp on the idea that the more heavily regulated a society is the more those in power can twist the narrative to make themselves look better? I'm seriously doubting your capacity in either of those regards.
When I was a combat advisor working with young Iraqi interpreters in 2008 and 2009, it was explained to me that we were invited. I asked the young man what he learned in school. He said that Iraq had won the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980's, and that Saddam had held back the Americans and gained victory over them in 1991. The fact that he remained in power was proof. He learned that in 2003 the Iraqi people "invited" the United States to help them overthrow Saddam so technically that was a victory as well. Interesting.
While the War of 1812 was a draw on paper, it was strategically an important win for the United States. It secured our western frontier and convinced the British that trying to contain US westward expansion was not worth the effort. It put an end to any lingering hopes in some factions that the USA would fail and rejoin the British Empire.
Yup. And considering the French had just tripled the size of the United States by selling their holdings on the continent, it was more about the British trying to stop another country from rising to prominence and opposing them. They failed in that endeavor. (And yeah, I spell that without the u because of George Washington, thank you very much.) ROFL
Actually, the British won the War of 1812. It was a defeat for the U.S. One of the major causes of the war was the U.S. attempt to annex Canada. That failed miserably. The U.S. was just fortunate that the British decided it wasn't worth it to keep pouring men and resources into fighting the war.
The US accomplished the vast majority of its war goals, the Empire failed to accomplish the vast majority of its. We call it a draw, but it wasn't.. not really. US made huge gains as a result of the war, especially when viewed under the lens of long-term consequences of the war.
It only seems like the U.S. didn't win if you let OTHER countries decide what our victory requirements were.
We wanted free trade and no impressment.
We got what we wanted.
Invading Canada was a means to that end.
also put to an end the hope by americans that canada would join the US. it's funny you left that bit out! the US lost
2:35: Actually, 4 July 1776 was a Thursday. (I know it was a figure of speech.)
D@mn you. I came here to say that!
The War of 1812 taught the US that having a tiny Army and Navy wasn’t enough. The military academies, a bigger standing army and the first giant (and instantly obsolete) ships of the line all sprang up soon after the blockade and raids of that war. And, no, this yank didn’t learn that until I was adult.
Well, we were understandably paranoid about a massive army of occupation forcing themselves on us and taking our livelihoods. Years of British rule gave us that particular bugaboo.
@@jonathanlindsey790 Plus, Napoleon had been defeated not long after, and it wasn’t an unreasonable fear that the Brits might want to come and have words with us about bothering them when they were fighting for survival. Nobody was under any delusions what a Britain without a war on their shores could do if they put in the effort.
I have a friend who is Japanese. The version of history he was taught in his youth (he is in his late 60s now) says that the Japanese offered to negotiate a peaceful end to the war, but the US did not want a peaceful, negotiated agreement, and dropped the first atomic bomb just two days later. On his last visit here, we were driving on I-95, and when we crossed the Quinnipiac River bridge in New Haven CT, before daybreak when the bridge was all lit up in blue, he asked if this bridge had a name. Although locals call it the Q Bridge, it's actually the Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge.
I remember once on international travel I picked up a magazine in the U.K. and read an article that was talking about the "trade dispute of 1812". It took me a couple of minutes to realize it was describing the War of 1812 and I exclaimed, "Trade dispute?!? You burnt down our White House!!!" 😂
interesting. Laura Secord's name is pronounced 'Sea-cord' by Canadians.
The war of 1812 is considered a major event in the defining of Canada.
Essentially the viciousness (with the burning of York, now Toronto, and looting of farms and estates) of the conflict led many people who had no opinion of the Americans either way, to turn against them and the idea that Canada might someday become part of the U.S.
Yummy chocolate!
What ? Which private school did you attend ?? Public schools don't care about it in AB/BC...
@@AndyWarhol1962 It was a big deal in Ontario schools when I was a kid. And the Battle of Chrysler Farm has a park/national historic site somewhere near Upper Canada Village. (I went to UCV on school trips but don't remember if we actually stopped at Chrysler Farm - I think we did at least once.) For some of us it was local history.
@@AndyWarhol1962 It’s much closer to home in Ontario and Quebec where most of the events took place. I live a few hundred meters from one of the battlefields here in Stoney Creek Ontario.
@@AndyWarhol1962 Might be a generational thing. It was pretty common 30 years back.
Without the American Revolution, however, the French Revolution would not have happened when it did if at all.
True, but you could say similar things about every other example in the video. History is taught through the lens of national bias, which means proximity will have a significant impact on the weight placed on given events. Think how British schools ignore the War of 1812 because the Napoleonic wars were alot closer and happened at the same time
@@izzyj.1079 Except while Napoleon was a threat, he didn't have immeasurable resources like the ones the British abandoned in North America. Long-term, the loss of North America was far more impactful on the future of the British Empire than yet another fight with France.
@@jonathanlindsey790 Sure, but they wouldn't have realized that at the time, and it doesn't pay to bellyache about it when we're allies anyway. In terms of broader history, the resources available in North America, and the swiftness with which they allowed America to ascend to great power status, is entirely unprecedented.
The way Marie Antoinette partied, I’m sure Louis would’ve run out of money eventually and the Revolution would have happened anyway.
Very interesting vid! Our perceptions of world events all start with the education system plus personal experiences! This vid gives an overview as to why the world perceives world events differently! A subject i hadnt thought to much about but one that impacts our world greatly!
As an American, I'll concede "math" to "maths" if Britons admit that "aluminum" has only one "i" and four syllables.
Just don't park too close to the kerb or you might damage your tyres 😂
maffs you mean
We invented aluminium.
@@white-dragon4424 Really, because Latin would beg to argue that your guy Humphry Davy borrowed Alumen, a bitter salt coprised of potassium aluminum sulphate, from Latin when he actually isolated the metallic element. The the very properly British Humphry Davy, proposed Alumium(1808), then actually named it Aluminum officially four years later(1812), whereupon some poncy British writer thought Aluminium sounded more "classical", or perhaps "Latiny" and thus launched a debate that rages on because no one ever cares enough to do even minimal research.
The irony is this same stupid thing happens all the damned time, for example, the British are who named what they call "football" Soccer in the first place, Americans are taught the "proper" English because it was a non-native language to many of our ancestors, thus we brought in professionals to teach it across our nation. In America we do the same crap with Spanish and French, which is why every French and Spanish speaking nation around the world thinks Americans only speak one language, and speak that one badly.
The folks from England plainly speak "British" as the Britons were linguistically-drifting long before we Americans went our own way, and don't get me started on my incomprehensibly correct mangling of the Spanish language in the ears of every actual Spanish speaker.
@@white-dragon4424And the gentleman who discovered it (you don’t “invent” an element) named it “ALUMINUM.” The journal editors who published his paper made the change without his knowledge or permission. You’re welcome.
Vietnamese people tend to learn of their countries liberation through victory in the "French War" and the "American War". There was no "Vietnam War". Americans learn that 58,220 people were killed in the "Vietnam War", the number of US combatants killed, ignoring the approximately 3,000,000 Vietnamese combatants and civilians killed in the "American War". Sometimes history should be written by the victors.
First you would have to teach Americans civilized life exists outside their barbaric nation… which is an impossible feat
1:24 no taxation without representation
Incredibly interesting video, would love to see more of this
What is also missing from your American Revolution analysis was Spain’s involvement as well. Bernardo de Gálvez won many battles along the Gulf of Mexico coast. His victories helped hinder the British supply lines. He also protected American privateers.
And we are truly grateful for all European Nations and European Nationals (like some of the Polish immigrants that came over to help. Long Live Poland).
That being said, I cannot stand Europeans that think they carried the US to victory in this war, because that is simply untrue.
We had a party & wanted coffee instead of tea.
Seriously, it was the tax on gunpowder & quartering British Soldiers that lit the powder keg.
No, it was the 15 years of multiple taxes that lit the keg. If you want to point to any one act, it was the stamp act, which was a tariff on paper products.
But after that, there were dozens of new taxes levied, colonists refused to pay them, they were repealed. Only for a new tax to be levied immediately.
All so Britain could refill their coffers and keep fighting the French for the 300th year in a row.
Took me until college to have to learn that britain had actually broken quite a few laws that it wouldn't have done with british subjects That quartering thing is from Magna Carta, for crying out loud!. The whole thing was really an argument on whether we were british subjects or colonists. And when britain kept treating us as colonists, we said. OK, we're not british subjects? FINE WITH US!"
and the fact Britain was preparing to abolish slavery and also stopped the colonists stealing more native land. it's funny how americans don't mention that...
@@jonathanlindsey790 hahaha and the colonists were crying because britain stopped them stealing more native land!
@@SafetySpooon oh stop crying. laws against quartering were suspended in britain plenty of times too. the american desire to be seen as victims is hilarious!
0:58 Wait, Americans start learning history from the American revolution? I hope it's just a generalization or that they simply don't study history in chronological order...
We don't start there, you may have miss herd him. Also it really depends on the state and school. There isn't much standardization.
It's hyperbole. The revolution is effectively where American history becomes its own entity beyond general world history. In elementary schools, anything pre-colonial America is typically condensed into one or two units on nomadic tribes, the resulting ancient civilizations once the nomads settled, and what European nation ultimately conquered & colonized which parts of the Americas. The colonial period is then treated as no more than the prelude to the revolution.
More your last suggestion. In many school systems, it's the first bit of history taught. Primary school mostly focuses on civics and how society works. Middle school gets into American history, then high school does world and European history. Of course, different school districts have different specifics and each state has its own learning standards, but at least in Pennsylvania where I went to school, that's pretty much the standard. At least it was a couple decades ago.
In my experience, it depends which class you are taking. It also varies by state and school district, as each state sets its own history standards and each district chooses how to implement them.
For me, in elementary and middle schools in Wisconsin we studied World History and American History in alternating years. World History classes covered Egypt, Greece, Native American tribes in North and South America, and a bit about Rome. American History classes started with several European countries and their earliest exploration and colonization efforts, jumped forward to the British colonies, covered the Revolutionary War in detail, and then jumped forward to rush through a bit of the Civil War.
Unfortunately, every year from Kindergarten through high school, we'd start all over again in the same place we'd started two years prior, cover the same early history exhaustively, and jump ahead for the same rushed final topic as the year came to a close. I'm still disappointed that we never studied Asia, Australia, most of Africa, most of Europe, nor most of the Americas. I'm also disappointed that we never studied any American History that happened between the two wars, nor anything after 1865. With the one exception that we did also study World War II in seventh grade, albeit mostly in English class rather than history class.
As a result, my school years gave me the impression that history was boring and irrelevant. It wasn't until I was an adult that I discovered how interesting, expansive, and relevant history actually is.
Maybe he’s trying to emphasize that its outsized importance in our history classes, but we definitely learn about the pilgrims, especially around Thanksgiving, and other early colonists arriving in the lead-up to the revolution, which is one of the easier events to understand for elementary school kids.
As an American, I was only ever taught that the War of 1812 gave rise to the national anthem, it was a stalemate, and nobody gained a thing, so it was a pointless loss of life and waste of resources. Basically a footnote of history to use as a filler between U.S. independence and the start of the American Civil War.
New Orleans was fought before Ghent was ratified by Congress, therefore we were at war with Britain and Edward Packenham was invading New Orleans. He was beaten and died. A brave man who survived Salamanca, Vitoria, all the Pyrenees, and Toulouse, died in the USA. I know he was not broadly significant but that was Wellington’s brother in law, an interesting bit of history imo
Originally, Wellington himself was supose to go to the US in 1814, but decided to stay in Europe. He was this close to being on the other side of the Atlantic during Waterloo.
@@Imjustasimpleman5310 The British government also wanted Wellington to lead the Allied army over Schwarzenberg initially and to then greatly reduce the Peninsular Army and to just hold the Pyrenees (it would have been a disaster for the allies once Soult attacked).
Wellington had little interest in either command.
The American Revolution was fought over 2-5% in taxes.
Today, Americans are taxed, on average, 20-30%.
Yup. The men and women who started this country would be ashamed of where we've gotten to. And would probably do the same thing they did then.
@@jonathanlindsey790no they wouldn’t. The problem wasn’t with taxes, it was about taxes without REPRESENTATION
@@Anna-B It was definitely the taxes that prompted it.
The British Empire spent huge amounts of $$ defending the American colonies during the Seven Years War, and they decided that because it benefitted the colonies so much they should be the ones to pay for it, and they'd do so by raising taxes on them.
That's what prompted it.
@@tacitus6384No, it was the lack of representation. The Magna Carta had laid out that the king could not levy a tax on an area without the approval of the kingdom’s “common counsel”, i.e. Parliament. Hence, it was settled fact in Britain at this time that it was the right of all Englishmen to be represented in Parliament if they were to be taxed. But the unrepresented colonists in the US were deprived of this right once the British began to levy taxes on them. The problem was that the Crown was taxing the colonists *without them having representation* that was the affront that started the war. That was an infringement on their sacred rights as Englishmen. The lack of representation was fine as long as they were not taxed, and the taxation would have been fine had they been granted their request to have a representative in Parliament. It was the King’s insistence on taxing them but refusing to give the colonies even a single MP that was the issue.
@@michaelimbesi2314 It was the taxes that prompted it...
You don't get a revolution going if a tax is negligible.
In all fairness we ,the United States, also study European, and events ,past and present, worldwide. At least those of us with any sense of curiosity. Being a history grad from a southern military college perhaps I'm different.
When I was in high school, we had four years of social studies. State history, US History, World History, Civics. Our language education also included world literature.
Sadly, my son just graduated high school and only took a year of world history and a year of combined state/us history. No civics class, which might be why so many Americans are so utterly stupid about how our own system of government works.
History has been deemed unimportant next to "STEM" education. Problem is, without history, we literally have no knowledge of what has failed or succeeded in the past. It's like sitting down to rediscover an element after the previous discoverer's notes have been burned.
@@jonathanlindsey790 My state did local, state, US, and world geography in elementarily. Civics and sort of pre 1900s world cultural history in middle school (7th/8th grade then, has changed since). Then WW1 - Cold War history in high school, though only two years in high school were required. So I could understand how a lot of people in my state would have forgotten a lot of civics by the time graduate, even worse if not interested in it at the time.
For me in the 1990's it was 9th and 10th grade Global Studies, 11th grade American History, 12th grade one semester of Economics, one semester of U S. Government. We did local history in elementary school. College was great for someone who enjoyed history just at our local community college I took elective courses on WWII and the Civil War, entire classes dedicated to these wars, although I was a business major.
The issue tends to be time. There's a lot of history that has to be left out in order to have students graduate when they do. You go to college and learn a bunch of stuff like that the HS version is often lacking to the point of bordering on fraud.
I'm American and my history teacher in high-school taught it as a draw. Which he said when fighting the best Army in the world, and the cost of losing is losing your new country it is a victory.
3:28 got her ta tas out, holding the flag high. That's nationalistic pride at its finest. 😂
"One day, for no reason we ever understood, the terrorists started attacking our buildings."
yuuuuuuup 😅😬
I read that the Japanese themselves discussed surrender based on who would treat them better afterwards, fearing retrebution from Russia the most. As far as I remember the bombs did not make any impact as they, up until Russia came along, were going to fight to the last man.
Memory is not very reliable, so please excuse me if I'm dead wrong☺️
This is accurate to my knowledge of the Japanese war council debates.
@@MrBrock314 Their council was deadlocked at 3-3 even after the USSR attacked and 2 atomic bombs were dropped, until the emperor finally broke the deadlock. According to the emperor the bombs were the primary reason but the more research you do, the more you start to realize that it was the combination of multiple factors that caused them to finally surrender. Operation Starvation had some impact as well, and a lot of people aren't even aware of it. I don't know why so many people struggle with something that's very nuanced and has no simple answers. Even after the emperor recorded the surrender there was an attempted coup and they weren't too concerned about the USSR who had no ability to invade the Japanese in any event. Even the UK and US were looking at a shortage of shipping for a proper invasion of Japan so i'm not sure how the USSR was supposed to invade.
@@jameshannagan4256You don't know why people struggle with things that are very nuanced and not simple?
Isn't the reason a lot of people struggle with stuff like that right there in the description?
@@letsgetreal6402 That was my lame attempt at sarcasm and after I posted it I realized the same thing you did.
@@jameshannagan4256 My mistake. Sarcasm just doesn't translate too good in text sometimes. Not your fault.
Rep. Ilian Omar described the 9-11 attacks as “some people did something”. So your description of how 9-11 is taught in Middle Eastern schools is not a surprise.
In the U.S.south it was/is taught in schools that the U.S. civil war is called "The war of Northern aggression"; Another overlooked bit of history is that leading up to 1776; The King forbid western expansion (due to colonists un-lifing natives and taking land). The King had treaties and plans with the Natives west/around of Appalachia. This was one of the last straws to break the camel's back for us. What do you mean we can't take what we want?
Yes history could have been so different if the King hadn't have been not all there upstairs, and the PM and old duffer who could barely remember his name.
Dealt with correctly the Revolt wouldn't have happened.
It was after all about a tax used to pay for their protection, as they had P'd off the locals, and the Empire couldn't afford the troops due to the war with France.
Presented correctly I'm sure most would have understood.
My AP US History class told us about how the king forbade expansion. It's even on the Declaration of Independence.
In Texas it was never called that. Don't speak for everyone.
As a Canadian, I can assure you that the war of 1812 isn’t taught for more than a week, never mind 3-4 months. Are participation in WW1 & 2 is more important.
As a 43 year old Canadian - the war of 1812 did use to have a larger presence in Canadian history. 3-4 months might be a bit of an exaggeration but it was at least a full unit back in the day.
1776: The War of American Independence
1812: The War of Canadian Dependence
Canda chose to remain independent of the USA - given the rise of the confederacy and Trump, can you blame them for that? 😅
@@quintuscrinis They also got shafted by letting England do their peace negotiations so their borders never changed (despite technically winning the war and gaining much of the territory northwest of the Ohio River). The US and Native American history would be very different if the Canadians had kept that territory.
@@quintuscrinis No, instead they got a leftist puppet who tried to shut down his economy during COVID and arrested those trying to feed their families.
@@ancova1183 Nah, once Britain lost interest in Canada and their failing grip on North America, the US would have just taken that territory anyway. Canada has been United States-lite for many many years at this point. Only the aspiration to British roots makes them feel superior.
@@jonathanlindsey790 Except we are superior. We live longer, pay less for healthcare, have a better education system and have a higher overall quality of life. It's not delusion if it's a fact.
The biggest outcome from the War of 1812 was the song "The Battle of New Orleans".
"In 1814 we took a little trip
Along with Colonel Jackson down the mighty Mississip'"
A small misunderstanding about how 9/11 and US schools in general.
While in September history may focus on 9/11, it is not without context.
In addition to briefly covering the events leading up to the attacks in a way that's okay for younger students, by the time we are old enough to learn in greater detail, we already know much of the context. For example, when studying European history we learn about the causes of various conflicts, such as the Crusades, wars with the Ottoman Empire, and the lasting impact of territorial partitioning. When we learn about the Thirty Years War or the Napoleonic Wars, we are also taught how political and religious motivations have shaped global powers.
In math we study economics and how commodities like oil can influence global economies and governments, using examples like OPEC and its influence on international relations. In U.S. history, we learn how British colonial policies and the aftermath of WWII influenced the United States complicated relationships with Israel and other Middle Eastern countries when we learn about the politics behind conflicts like the first Gulf War.
I don’t remember ever seeing a lesson titled "Why the U.S. Was Attacked," but by the time we look at the attacks in detail, we already know the broader context and history-whether it’s the role of the CIA in Cold War operations, the influence of the USSR, or the rise of Islamic terrorism. Things like that are taught in different lessons at different times in things that might sometimes sound unrelated, like geography or literature.
USSR!? Cold war!? Those aren't at all related to the 9/11 attacks, so wdym!?
Having lived in the States at the time of 9/11 and years later - your experience is uncommon.
I watched US news for weeks after the attack and very little context was given other than bin Laden attacking the same building in the early 90s which is less context and more propaganda.
I lived again in the States in 2005-2007 and the coverage was basically the same. Even events like the Israel-Lebanon war were given the most miniscule coverage.
There was no mention of why Islamic extremists were targeting the United States other than the same refrain of "they hate freedom and bikinis". No mention of US rigging of the 1979 Iranian election. No mention of US purchasing and distribution of biological weapons to Iraq and the million dead Iranians that followed. Very little mention of the hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths in Iraq at the hands of US forces for an illegal war.
@@MrBrock314 I was referring to education, not news coverage. You will never learn anything of value from so-called journalists who only work for views.
"...hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths in Iraq at the hands of US forces...'
And this is why the difference is important. Most Americans _know_ that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died at the hand of US forces.
Except that didn't happen.
The news media wants you to believe that it did, so you believe it, but factually, what actually happened was hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were killed by fellow Iraqis, not US forces. Watching the news will only make you less informed.
FYI Mathematics is a singular noun that was mistaken as plural due to ending in S so was abbreviated incorrectly by the British as Maths. Just amused you used one of the examples where the Americans actually got it right.
If I were British I’d want to forget the fact the my country lost a massive, resource-rich continent to a bunch of peasants too
Us British would be ashamed if our country only existed because of the French. The way you lot celebrate a bunch of god botherers getting their big brave French boyfriends to fight their battles is cringe worthy.
I can't believe you draw such attention to it.
Haha. Oh la la, so romantic. 🇺🇲🍆🇫🇷. ❤️❤️❤️ 😂😂😂
@PenguinEconomics-st2ws Well, please don't wake up our american brothers from their idea of pure country led by people made from peasants. Like civil war was about abolishing slavery in the name of the good instead of economical and political dominance of north over south.
We lost the continent to a load of ultra wealthy liberal traitors. /spit
*I Love OUR Lord DonaLd Trump, & HE is the MOST Honest REAL MAN, in History!!!!*
*DonaLd Trump WINS by a LAND SLIDE in just 24 more days!!! Weeeeeeeeeeeee*
Haha, but you're happy that you're country exists because of the French.
That would be more shameful for us Brits than our strategic withdrawal from hostilities is.
In my experience with American public schools in the 1990s, history was taught from a very USA-centric perspective:
1. The Greeks and Romans only matter because they invented democracy and Western culture.
2. Spain only matters because they discovered the Americas.
3. England and France only matter to show the contrast between Constitutional Monarchy and Absolute Monarchy.
4. The rest of Europe doesn't matter before 1914. Asia didn't matter before 1941. Africa never mattered (maybe Ancient Egypt).
Also, history basically just ended after WW2 because there was never time left in the semester to cover anything more recent.
I mean, to be fair, it is more important to understand and learn our own history as there is a lot to it. That being said, it should be encouraged to learn history outside the US.