A Scot's view of how little Scots are taught of their own history

[ThistleDown]

Those are good questions, BB. Jerry (jhockin) was, however, asking: I would like to "hear" the reaction of those Scots, who were educated in Scotland/ the UK, on how little, or how much, they were taught of Scottish history. The problem on this forum, with its limited cultural diversity, is that those who are not Scottish-educated find that they need to respond with comparatives from within their own culture and social experience. And because there are so fewer of us we can sometimes seem defensive which -- I assure you! -- we are not.

There is almost no similarity between the destruction of Native American culture by a greedy, land-hungry incoming horde and the absorption of Scottish society by a large, wealthier, powerful (and, perhaps, greedier) portion of itself.

If we must compare Scottish and American education, then we must look at America's North and its South, and the United Kingdom's North and South, in reverse. But -- and this is a very large 'but' -- Scotland's National educational system and intense desire for knowledge has long been superior to that of its dominant neighbour Nation. If we take the blog jhockin gives us as a symbol of Scots knowledge about its own history, the question Scots must ask is what knowledge of its history exists south of the Tweed -- and it does ask that question, frequently. A secondary question might be directed to the limited extent of the survey and, mayhap, to the location of the blogger when he conducted it.

I can't remark on your point that folk in America are absorbing history as it is tossed at them on social media without question and research. That's beyond the OP's question and quite probably in violation of our rules on political comment.

[kiltedtom]

For about twenty-five years, I taught university level history: European, ancient, and United States history. I was surprised at how little students knew of history. I was further surprised by how inaccurately history was being taught. The truth is, of course, that no single book nor single class could possibly contain all the knowledge needed to "teach" history.

Therefore, each author and each teacher, hopefully, try to pick out the most relevant and important information to give to the students. Something important always gets left behind. And, in today's world, there are so many histories. And all of them are important and valid.

What I find disturbing is the way some authors and teachers try to distort the story. Real life has more intrigue, sex, and bloodshed than any film or soap opera could show.

Another issue is when educational "leaders" determine what is important and what is not. Many states here have "standards" that have to be taught so as to prepare students for higher learning. Teachers often have their courses pretty much predetermined. And little time remains to fill in the gaps. As a kid, back when Stonehenge was brand new, teachers taught what they thought was right and needed. My generation did not have trouble doing the higher education.

I do believe that if teachers were left to teach without interference, students would know more of their own history. But yet, no one, can know everything about everything. Keep on reading. And challenge what you read to make sure it is honest and true.

Have a good new year, by the way.

Tom

[The Q]

Starting from the point of view of Outlander has very little to do with history....

As someone who was educated in Northern Ireland, England and Scotland with a Scottish certificate of education higher level in history. It doesn't matter which you were in, official history education in my time at school (1962-1975) was outline only for national history education.

Do you teach of heroic Jacobites verses the nasty English royalty and army.
Or
Do you teach of the army of the elected British government fighting a bunch of rebels lead by an Italian( Charles Edward Louis John Casimir Sylvester Severino Maria Stuart ) supported by a foreign power ( France).

Most of my certificated history education was European history ( including Britain's role) roughly from 1800 to 1950. Though the history books went right up to 1970..

Sadly most drop history as soon as they can, media studies is seen as an easier subject.
Today history education is more about how people felt about things, rather than what actually happened. They are supposedly taught how to find things out, rather than to know things. But with a lack of genuine teaching of the history, they have no interest and never go to find out the facts.

Most learn their history from rubbish films like Braveheart. Much of British history has been mangled by hollywood., Their TV series are now adding to the problem.

[jhockin]

Starting from the point of view of Outlander has very little to do with history....

As someone who was educated in Northern Ireland, England and Scotland with a Scottish certificate of education higher level in history. It doesn't matter which you were in, official history education in my time at school (1962-1975) was outline only for national history education.

Do you teach of heroic Jacobites verses the nasty English royalty and army.
Or
Do you teach of the army of the elected British government fighting a bunch of rebels lead by an Italian( Charles Edward Louis John Casimir Sylvester Severino Maria Stuart ) supported by a foreign power ( France)..

I wonder if you are referring solely to the "Outlander" TV series, or include the books? IMHO, the books are much better. Either way, the blog poster speaks about how "Outlander" sparked his interest in finding out more about the historical background of the story. Ms. Gabaldon did do a substantial amount of historical research, and that shows. However, she does also point out that she did, sometimes, alter some small details ( ex.: timing) in the interest of the plot. Nevertheless, the basics of historical facts remain in the storyline. I felt that the bloggers main point, that very little of Scottish was taught to Scots, was interesting ( and it seems, many here seem to feel that the same was true in their own schooling, wherever that may have been. What wasn't taught is also interesting, whatever the reasons.)

[kingandrew]

Regarding the well-founded frustration that "Braveheart" is the most widely-seen source of Scottish "history:"

It is certainly true that Mel Gibson's film is a lousy history text. He makes all sorts of distortions, fabrications, and anachronisms.

However, the same can also be said for all the really popular Hollywood films about American history, from "Birth of a Nation" to "Gone With the Wind" through the great John Wayne Westerns and on to "Dances with Wolves" and "Forrest Gump." They all offer cockeyed, biased, and frequently inaccurate portrayals of events and people. We can include Mr. Gibson's "The Patriot" in this list, too.

That said, these movies were all quite entertaining to audiences and great vehicles for furthering the careers of their stars. And this is the problem: Hollywood's goals are telling entertaining stories and promoting stars that will help sell tickets to their next movie. Professional historians and serious students of history are seen as a small niche audience, best served by PBS documentaries.

But it is still frustrating to see the myths and distortions of Hollywood entertainments absorbed as facts by the public. As a teacher, I often found that ridiculous parodies like "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" or "Blazing Saddles" did a better job of highlighting certain historical issues and themes than the costume blockbusters.

What we can all hope is that seeing a story or era brought to life on the big screen will inspire some portion of the audience to learn more. Which certainly does happen from time to time.

Andrew

[The Q]

As a kid, back when Stonehenge was brand new, teachers taught what they thought was right and needed.

Tom

I knew you were old, but roughly, 5000 years old is some achievement

[macmanjim]

For about twenty-five years, I taught university level history: European, ancient, and United States history. I was surprised at how little students knew of history. I was further surprised by how inaccurately history was being taught. The true is, of course, that no single book nor single class could possibly contain all the knowledge needed to "teach" history.

Therefore, each author and each teacher, hopefully, try to pick out the most relevant and important information to give to the students. Something important always gets left behind. And, in today's world, there are so many histories. And all of them are important and valid.

What I find disturbing is the way some authors and teachers try to distort the story. Real life has more intrigue, sex, and bloodshed than any film or soap opera could show.

Another issue is when educational "leaders" determine what is important and what is not. Many states here have "standards" that have to be taught so as to prepare students for higher learning. Teachers often have their courses pretty much predetermined. And little time remains to fill in the gaps. As a kid, back when Stonehenge was brand new, teachers taught what they thought was right and needed. My generation did not have trouble doing the higher education.

I do believe that if teachers were left to teach without interference, students would know more of their own history. But yet, no one, can know everything about everything. Keep on reading. And challenge what you read to make sure it is honest and true.

Have a good new year, by the way.

Tom

I was a US history major undergrad and I had to read a lot. My professors stressed reading stories/narratives from the bottom up, from real folks that were there. Of course we had to read modern commentary too. At the time, I like the post civil war to 1900 era best, then post WWII, but I've become more intrigued with the revolutionary period now. It's interesting, but I went into computers and ended up getting a masters in information systems, but I'd like to do something on the graduate level that combines history, maybe poli sci, psychology/sociology/anthropology in terms of leadership and movement and why people choose the leaders they do from those perspectives. What I have found from just delving into psychology a bit is that a much larger percentage of leaders/executives/politicians are psychopaths than the general population. I'd like to find out why this happens, consequences and solutions if possible or necessary. What many don't realize is that even some leaders that are liked were/are psychopaths and they have had some negative outcomes long term, IMO, that are overlooked...James Fallon touches on this and Robert Sapolsky has done interesting work with baboon tribes and has demonstrated/recorded changes when the alphas are taken out of the equation, with positive results. Anyway, psychopaths are drawn to leadership like peds are drawn to certain professions. To put it another way, power doesn't corrupt, it attracts the corrupted. Sorry for the long winded talk, just had to get it out.

[neloon]

We Scots, of whom the question was originally asked have said noticeably little. That is because Scottish history cannot be divorced from politics which we are not allowed to discuss on this site and, for similar reasons, is avoided in school education.

Alan

[fflex]

I remember being taught about the battle of Hastings (1066) and also a lot about the Romans. The Roman stuff I liked as there is a local interest with remnants of Antonines Wall visible from my high school. We did learn about Mary, Queen of Scots, as this was also a local story, she being born in Linlithgow. (I grew up in Falkirk). We touched on Scottish history, the battles in Falkirk and Bannockburn,and studied the World Wars. I think the problem was trying to fit in over 1000 years of history into two years of learning.

[The Q]

Not so ancient history, did you go down to the Scottish railway preservation society? They backed onto the east Stirling football ground, I was a regular there at the srps and when they moved to. Bo'ness. I don't get there so often these days although I'm still a member..