Television programmes [2]

I was also homeschooled. My books, text and otherwise, growing up often had more of a Christian perspective when it came to the arrival of, and eventual domination by, Europeans in the New World. There were slanted takes on events like Jamestown, etc. but it was more what was left out about Native Americans that skewed my learning. I did learn a lot about African-American history and culture though.
I don't recall anything unsettling, but it's hard to recall everything accurately.

I attended some local charter schools, ones that use a different curriculum than public schools and are very independent. They would bring us on field trips to learn about the Ohlone people who lived here when the Spanish first arrived: about how they made boats out of a kind of large bullrush, called a tule (too-lee, too-lees plural). Hunter-gatherer culture, basically. It was fun.

(Not pictured: Ohlone tribespeople)


Ohlones (certainly staged, but I think these are actual members of one of the Ohlone/Costanoan tribes. If not, the tules are at least accurate. ):




Although, it was only once I got to college that I really learned more about the history of "third-world" countries in anything like a focused manner. I mean, I read a great deal growing up so I knew bits and pieces of history around the world, but taking two semesters of World History was great for opening up my understanding of how Africa has developed over the years, and South-east Asian culture.

From what I've seen helping my nieces and nephews with their homework and attending school activities with them, there's a strong shift towards multi-culturalism. I encountered that too when I was in a local charter school and attended classes back in 2002-2005ish, but it's probably a tad stronger now. My nephews have taken part in African drumming rhythms, had a traditional South American cuisine day thingummy, etc.

Remember though, that I live in California. And in the Bay Area. And in Santa Cruz County.
My experience is in no way indicative of the U.S. at large because I A) never attended public school, and B) am surrounded by a great number of liberal heathens!

I agree that education in the UK is, I dunno, you have to get first things first which, for me is, learn about your country before you spread out. Petty says Scottish history is overlooked, yes, it certainly was when I was at school, so was Welsh history, so was Irish history. Those countries are part of Great ( huh ) Britain, they should be included, why aren't they ? I wondered this as I grew up, I really don't mean to be rude but, we learnt about Diwali before the Potato Famine, or about Queen Mary ( who made a few faux pas & paid the price )
I don't know where this " stuff jacket" attitude comes from ?

I've probably mentioned this before, but I once went to a lecture by the famous physicist Freeman Dyson. When you are that famous, you get to choose your topic, and he decided to talk about education.

He noted: when was the great age of British science? Went from Newton (late 1600's) to the early 20th century (less known names like Paul Dirac but Watson of Watson and Crick was still being educated). What was being taught in school during this period? Greek and Latin, mainly, with geometry and a few other odds and ends. Dyson was educated during this period, and he said it worked great.

The first key, you see, was that the students hated the curriculum. The second key was to have a very good, up-to-date library. The students would sneak off and learn physics, and biology etc as a form of rebellion. They loved whatever was NOT in the curriculum, and became good at it. Not unlike kids today who take their love of video gaming into programming (more so when the games were more primitive than now).

But once England ditched the classics and went into teaching a more 'relevant' curriculum, the golden age of english science was over. He may have a point, actually.

{{I think part of the reason is that Scottish Welsh and Irish history has rather a lot of it spent either trying to stop England taking over the country, or actively fighting the English to stop them taking over the country.

It seems to me was that what the education system wanted form early on was to have just 1 history for the British Isles and it would serve to highlight the aspects the powers that be wanted - so we get plucky british tribes fighting romans, but we dont get from about the same time the first Kings of Scotland appearing in a single unified state following the ending of the pictish realm in the NE (and all this following immigration from Ireland, in particular the Dalrieda settling along the west coast), and we get the War of the Roses, but we dont get the Jaocobite Revolt ect

Its all blitz spirit, plucky little Britain against the odds- and all the other stuff, all the times we were all fighting each other and at odds over sovereignty, that just gets brushed under the carpet- problem is if you do that all your left with is english stuff. }}}

Pettytyrant101 wrote:there is a set curriculum which everyone has to follow in Britain no matter which area you live in. Its not some sinister plot, its standardisation.- Figg


{{You started off not even believing we didn't get taught Scots history- now your saying that its all fine we dont get any of our own history. English instant self justification- I dont even think you lot knowing your doing it you've been so institutionally ingrained with bias.

And its not standardisation- its English history- or are you telling me that its purely coincidental there is no mention of events like say The Highland Clearances, or the Jacobite uprising of 1745, or Wallace, or the Bruce, or hell the Scottish enlightenment which not only effected all of the Uk but all of Europe and arguably the world as the train of thought which leads to the creation of the American doctrine has many roots right there.
Are you honestly trying to tell me that knowing Boudica led a tiny futile rebellion against the Romans and got her arse kicked for it is more important in UK history than the above?

No Figg, you'd have to be naive to think its all purely coincidence that the history curriculum in the UK is all but purged of the history of all other UK nations but England. }}}

bollocks. If your parents had thought it important enough they would have sat you down with a book and told you about Scottish history if you didn't get it at school. secondly most of this English colonial clap-trap is mostly SNP propaganda. thirdly I didn't get to learn my regional history which is just as important as yours, but I don't belly ache about it or pretend to be a victim. I didn't get to learn about Mancunian or Lancastrian history, or local historical figures, what makes you think yours are more important? you are displaying a fair bit of bias yourself.

If your parents had thought it important enough they would have sat you down with a book- Figg

{{What my parents should or did or did not do is not under discussion Figg- we are talking about the UK's national history curriculum and the fact it is almost devoid of Scottish history (and as Azriel points out Welsh and Irish too) and yet is full of England's history- this is not a coincidence or by accident.

When I left school aged 18 I could tell you the history of England in broad outline from Alfred and his burnt cakes to WW2 and the creation of the Welfare State.

I couldn't do the same of Scottish history.

In fact at 18 I had never even HEARD of the Scottish Enlightenment- never knew it ever existed.
Yet its one of the most significant periods of Scottish history not only having British and European ramifications, but global ones which still resound to this very day-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Enlightenment

Yet this is not deemed worthy or significant enough for the UK history curriculum? Seriously? }}

'most of this English colonial clap-trap is mostly SNP propaganda'

{{ The SNP were a fringe joke party with 1 notable MP when I was at school, I was not even aware of them most of my school life- they are a modern phenomenon on the Scottish political scene. I had no education in my own countries history- and that had nothing at all in any which way to do with the SNP.}}

'I didn't get to learn my regional history which is just as important as yours'

{{ Yes your regional history is as important as mine- in my case thats the history of Cowal, Bute and Argyll- I am talking about an entire countries history not a region (Though thats exactly how england thinks of us- despite the fair words about a union of equal nations ect we are treated as a region- explicitly so by the BBC who put the Scottish news after the 'national news' and in the same slot as when they otherwise switch around England to the regional news bulletins)

I for one believe its very important a people know their own history, to see where they have come form and the direction of travel and the ideas which have driven it this far. In the hope of doing better in the future with the knowledge.
You cant do that if you never have an overview of your countries progress. And that has to be done on a country level or you will never get an overview- you would just swamp the student with information and detail otherwise. }}

Mrs Figg wrote: I didn't get to learn about Mancunian or Lancastrian history, or local historical figures,

I'm sorry to hear that! One of the things I loved about the North was the amazing depth of history and memory among the people I met along the way. In Yorkshire villages I remember hearing people talk about the woolen mills and the labor unrest as if it had happened last week, not nearly 2 centuries ago. Same with The Scottish Highlands and the Clearances. They'd tell you the names of the farms and families that had lived in (and been evicted from) what were now overgrown piles of stones from centuries before. That "sense of place" is something I've come to truly value wherever I find it.

I agree Dave, It gives you a feeling of "something", I feel lost without knowing my roots so to speak. Even Immigrants & people fleeing for their lives speak up proudly of their age old history. It gives you solidity & a sense of belonging, a connection with the next person, which is kinda cosy

We don't have much of that in America. A few older places hold echoes of older times, but the typical surburbia is sterile - holding nothing more than memories of childhood.

So I've got a question:
Whatever we call this thing - local history, sense of place. echoes of older times - is this what sets Tolkien's writing apart from most other writers for you?
(It is for me. )

Yes. Nobody does it better. Frank Herbert came close at times in Dune. G.R.R. Martin also contends for second place. Though Martin does more scene setting than Herbert it feels more constructed; doesn't seep into the bones quite the same way.

I think "concerning hobbits" and the introduction to Bree are pre-eminent examples of rooting a story in time and place.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:If your parents had thought it important enough they would have sat you down with a book- Figg

{{What my parents should or did or did not do is not under discussion Figg- we are talking about the UK's national history curriculum and the fact it is almost devoid of Scottish history (and as Azriel points out Welsh and Irish too) and yet is full of England's history- this is not a coincidence or by accident.

When I left school aged 18 I could tell you the history of England in broad outline from Alfred and his burnt cakes to WW2 and the creation of the Welfare State.

I couldn't do the same of Scottish history.

In fact at 18 I had never even HEARD of the Scottish Enlightenment- never knew it ever existed.
Yet its one of the most significant periods of Scottish history not only having British and European ramifications, but global ones which still resound to this very day-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Enlightenment

Yet this is not deemed worthy or significant enough for the UK history curriculum? Seriously? }}

'most of this English colonial clap-trap is mostly SNP propaganda'

{{ The SNP were a fringe joke party with 1 notable MP when I was at school, I was not even aware of them most of my school life- they are a modern phenomenon on the Scottish political scene. I had no education in my own countries history- and that had nothing at all in any which way to do with the SNP.}}

'I didn't get to learn my regional history which is just as important as yours'

{{ Yes your regional history is as important as mine- in my case thats the history of Cowal, Bute and Argyll- I am talking about an entire countries history not a region (Though thats exactly how england thinks of us- despite the fair words about a union of equal nations ect we are treated as a region- explicitly so by the BBC who put the Scottish news after the 'national news' and in the same slot as when they otherwise switch around England to the regional news bulletins)

I for one believe its very important a people know their own history, to see where they have come form and the direction of travel and the ideas which have driven it this far. In the hope of doing better in the future with the knowledge.
You cant do that if you never have an overview of your countries progress. And that has to be done on a country level or you will never get an overview- you would just swamp the student with information and detail otherwise. }}

ok lets get this in logical perspective. When we went to school in the UK which is supposed to be a United Kingdom, there was most likely a syllabus for the whole country, Scotland, Wales and England and this syllabus would have been for O levels A levels or GCHQ or whatever the hell it is these days. Anyway if one part of the country was doing Fantastic Haggis and Where To find Them for O level, and the rest of the country was doing 1066 and all that, how the fuck would they have been able to mark the exam papers fairly? explain please.
from what I remember history consisted of other peoples Revolutions, and other people invading the UK. So we learned the French Revolution, the American War of Indi, and Italian unification, we also learned the Roman, Spanish (nearly), Viking and French invasions of the UK, The Romans included Scotland and Hadrians Wall, the Elizabethan bit included Mary Queen of Scots, the Jacobites and the various Charles, Jameses and that included Scottish history. We did a bit on the Civil War and Cromwell, and that was basically it. I don't remember ever learning about the Welsh apart from the Barons and the various Edwards, and nowt about the 1st, 2nd WWs or the Industrial revolution, so I actually learned MORE about Scotland than I did my own part of the world. So quit moaning on about the horrible English colonists. its imaginary.

Mrs Figg wrote:
from what I remember history consisted of other peoples Revolutions, and other people invading the UK. So we learned the French Revolution, the American War of Indi, and Italian unification....

I'd love to hear how that story is told to young people over there!

A few years ago at the bicentennial of the War of 1812 I was comparing notes with some Canadians, and learned for the first time that each country teaches it's children that the other side lost

 It's often been said that the winners of wars write the history books, but this is the first example I'd met where the writer's of history books get to decide who won the war! Are there more of these out there I wonder?

Clinton won the election...

how the fuck would they have been able to mark the exam papers fairly? explain please. - Figg

{{Oh thats easy Scotland has a separate exam board- always has had who do the marking. So it would not have been a problem.}}

'I actually learned MORE about Scotland than I did my own part of the world.'

{{{Then if so you learned more about Scotland than the Scots did. For myself History was mandatory in 1st and 2nd year then you had to choose after that- I did 2 years of O grade History, then followed that up with a year of Higher History- and all english.}}}

'its imaginary.'

{{If only it were! But if it were then the scottish govenrment after all these years in power would not still have to be fighting just to get Scottish history and literature on the curriculum- and the Tories and Labour (the two unionist parties) would not still be trying to stop it. }}}

hm. Two separate conversations going on in this thread, neither one mentioning television programs. We're forking the Norcing.

{{{Mmmmmm.....fine then!}}}}

David H wrote:

Mrs Figg wrote:
from what I remember history consisted of other peoples Revolutions, and other people invading the UK. So we learned the French Revolution, the American War of Indi, and Italian unification....

I'd love to hear how that story is told to young people over there!

A few years ago at the bicentennial of the War of 1812 I was comparing notes with some Canadians, and learned for the first time that each country teaches it's children that the other side lost  

 It's often been said that the winners of wars write the history books, but this is the first example I'd met where the writer's of history books get to decide who won the war! Are there more of these out there I wonder?

From what I remember it was connected to the French Revolution, the Americans taking on some of the revolutionary chaps as inspiration. We also did the bit about Bostonians turning the sea into the biggest cup of tea ever. by and large it was very pro-American.

Interesting! I suppose it could be a lot worse. Probably should be actually...

As I remember our version, King Louis of France sent General Lafayette to America to help us kick the ass of the British Tyrant.  Then George Washington taught Lafayette the injustice of all monarchies and sent him back to France to start the French Revolution, or some such.

And of course the Tea Party story with the Boston merchants all dressed up as Indians.
( There's another time our history books deigned to mention Indians )

From what Ive heard of, most Country's will only teach about their homeland ( or anyone else's ) in the way that suits them. Each Country wants to bask in the glory of their own light. Its a human failing, no one can be 100% honest. So much is hushed up, ssshooshed & hidden away. Then theres that convenient "Official secret's Act", What an eye opener that can be once enough time has elapsed & the beans can be spilt That's the juicy bit of History I enjoy actually, the dark, grisly stuff or, the sinister stuff, people squirreled away because they were deemed insane, or dangerous because they were "whistle blowers"

David H wrote:So I've got a question:
Whatever we call this thing - local history, sense of place. echoes of older times - is this what sets Tolkien's writing apart from most other writers for you?
(It is for me. )

well to be fair I think Tolkien had a very good sense of vanishing peasantry in the face of the industrial revolution and mechanism, but for me personally I get more of a sense of place from Alan Garner because he was writing about Cheshire and Lancashire places I know. Garner uses local history, legends and has a very strong sense of place.

but setting a sense of place in a place that actually exists is different from one that doesn't exist.  I'm very much in favor of the current trend for writers to do their homework; so the question is, do historical writers have to do more work to both get the history right and make it come alive, or do pure fiction writers have to do more work because they have to create it all?

I have to lean towards the historical writers here, though I still don't feel any of them touched Tolkien's world building, even given a historical blueprint!

(would Dumas be considered a historical writer?  I think his world building was nearly as good as Tolkien, even if he kept one foot firmly in history and the other foot in fertile imagination.)

Mrs Figg wrote:

David H wrote:

Mrs Figg wrote:
from what I remember history consisted of other peoples Revolutions, and other people invading the UK. So we learned the French Revolution, the American War of Indi, and Italian unification....

I'd love to hear how that story is told to young people over there!

A few years ago at the bicentennial of the War of 1812 I was comparing notes with some Canadians, and learned for the first time that each country teaches it's children that the other side lost  

 It's often been said that the winners of wars write the history books, but this is the first example I'd met where the writer's of history books get to decide who won the war! Are there more of these out there I wonder?

From what I remember it was connected to the French Revolution, the Americans taking on some of the revolutionary chaps as inspiration. We also did the bit about Bostonians turning the sea into the biggest cup of tea ever. by and large it was very pro-American.

As goes the war of 1812, it wasn't really connected, it was all connected to the relations between the UK and the suddenly independent US in the aftermath of the american revolution, which did not take pointers from the french revolution per se, as it happened after, but did obviously share the same cultural background, liberté, égalité, fraternité, and so on. The war of 1812 came about on the back of the emnity still shared betwen the recently independent colonies and the UK, particularly as the UK went on treating US citizens pretty much as subjects of the royal crown. American sailors where forcably taken of ships and enlisted in the royal navy, many small things like this that wounded US pride lead to the war, which practically meant the UK was fighting the US, while fully embroiled in the napoleonic wars. The war itself lead to no significant result other than the status quo being reaffirmed. The US reaffirmed their status as an independent nation, the UK kep Canada as a seperate nation in North America subject to the British crown. A whole lot of resources spent on basically achieving nothing. UK soldiers venturing from Canada did capture the US capital, then, as now, Washington, and did burn the then White House, but the US survived.. to elect Donald Trump president...

So, what history teaches.. is.. that.. it's all a mixed bag.. in the end

I just started watching The Expanse, very early days, but it's kind of reminding me of Firefly so far, without the same charming humour, but, still.. looks and sounds interesting

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Expanse_(TV_series)

Bluebottle wrote:

Mrs Figg wrote:

David H wrote:

Mrs Figg wrote:
from what I remember history consisted of other peoples Revolutions, and other people invading the UK. So we learned the French Revolution, the American War of Indi, and Italian unification....

I'd love to hear how that story is told to young people over there!

A few years ago at the bicentennial of the War of 1812 I was comparing notes with some Canadians, and learned for the first time that each country teaches it's children that the other side lost  

 It's often been said that the winners of wars write the history books, but this is the first example I'd met where the writer's of history books get to decide who won the war! Are there more of these out there I wonder?

From what I remember it was connected to the French Revolution, the Americans taking on some of the revolutionary chaps as inspiration. We also did the bit about Bostonians turning the sea into the biggest cup of tea ever. by and large it was very pro-American.

As goes the war of 1812, it wasn't really connected, it was all connected to the relations between the UK and the suddenly independent US in the aftermath of the american revolution, which did not take pointers from the french revolution per se, as it happened after, but did obviously share the same cultural background, liberté, égalité, fraternité, and so on. The war of 1812 came about on the back of the emnity still shared betwen the recently independent colonies and the UK, particularly as the UK went on treating US citizens pretty much as subjects of the royal crown. American sailors where forcably taken of ships and enlisted in the royal navy, many small things like this that wounded US pride lead to the war, which practically meant the UK was fighting the US, while fully embroiled in the napoleonic wars. The war itself lead to no significant result other than the status quo being reaffirmed. The US reaffirmed their status as an independent nation, the UK kep Canada as a seperate nation in North America subject to the British crown. A whole lot of resources spent on basically achieving nothing. UK soldiers venturing from Canada did capture the US capital, then, as now, Washington, and did burn the then White House, but the US survived.. to elect Donald Trump president...

So, what history teaches.. is.. that.. it's all a mixed bag.. in the end

well as I wasn't talking about 1812, but the 1775–1783 American War of Independence, yes it was connected directly.

"The first phase of the French Revolution took much inspiration from the works of Montesquieu, Thomas Jefferson and John Locke, whose ideas the revolutionaries in America had also touted. Their ideas came to the fore in the early phases of the revolution, when the National Constituent Assembly replaced the absolute monarchy of the Ancien Régime with a constitutional monarchy, Montesquieu's favored system of government. In 1789, the same assembly passed "The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen," a document that draws deeply from the works of John Locke and from Thomas Jefferson's "Declaration of Independence."
The influence, however, was not only philosophical. France fought on the American side in the American Revolution, causing them to go deep into debt. To resolve this debt crisis, French officials attempted to pass a land tax that the aristocratic and religious classes, who had formerly been exempt from such taxes, would have to pay. When representatives from French society met to discuss the tax, members of the Third Estate, which represented all French citizens who were not clergy or nobility, asked for more say in the matter. This request set off the events that ultimately became the French Revolution." wiki