How is Culloden and Prince Charles looked on and taught in Scotland?

[Jack Daw]

Sir Daniel and Jack Daw,

I agree that we have too much history to teach in a small time frame ourselves as Americans. We Just get the basics but its scary how little people know about important things. You see it all the time on Leno and Letterman, when they ask questions to passersby about history.

As far as learning why things happen that is high school and college level stuff. Everything before that is usually just dates and names. And we all usually have our family stories of why our ancestors came to America which can't be put in a book or class.

Having access to native Scots and people in other countries I find it interesting what they learn about subjects, be it our History or their own.

Thanks,

Darin

The details and differing POVs of history are available for those that want to learn it. Grousing that the common man on the street doesn't know his history is like a physician complaining that the regular Joe doesn't know the difference between a virus and bacteria.

[macwilkin]

The details and differing POVs of history are available for those that want to learn it. Grousing that the common man on the street doesn't know his history is like a physician complaining that the regular Joe doesn't know the difference between a virus and bacteria.

That is easy to say, but from my perspective as a history teacher, when your students do not have the basic knowledge for an entry-level survey class in American history, it makes it very difficult to teach a more expanded view of the subject.

T.

[macwilkin]

I remember little or nothing beyond mention of the Boston Tea Party being taught about the American Revolution. There was something about General Wolfe and Quebec but this was earlier and nothing to do with the revolution.

Wolfe & Quebec actually have quite a bit to do with the Revolution, since the Seven Years/French & Indian Wars were indirectly responsible for it. Without going into one of my lectures, in 1763, with the defeat of the French, and the end of New France, the British government expected the colonists to pay for the war, at which the colonial assemblies balked. Add to the fact that Britain had promised her Indian allies that their lands west of the Appalachians would be protected from further settlement (tell that to the Scots-Irish), and the stage was set for the "unpleasantness" between the North American colonies and Britain.

Parliament saw nothing unreasonable about the Americans paying for the army and navy that had been defending them from the French, Spanish and their Indian allies since the late 1600s, and the American assemblies jealously guarded their right to raise revenues (even though the average Briton paid twice as much in taxes as an American colonist). Add to that the debate over who was supreme in power -- colonial assemblies or parliament, and there you have the spark that started the forest fire in 1775.

Regards,

Todd

[Jack Daw]

That is easy to say, but from my perspective as a history teacher, when your students do not have the basic knowledge for an entry-level survey class in American history, it makes it very difficult to teach a more expanded view of the subject.

T.

I accept your point. So, is there a lack of incentive for a student to do well because the school systems fail to exact consequences for failing? Or, is the material just too watered down to be retained?

[macwilkin]

I accept your point. So, is there a lack of incentive for a student to do well because the school systems fail to exact consequences for failing? Or, is the material just too watered down to be retained?

History/social sciences are always the first victim of the ax in public schools when it comes to standardized testing.

T.

[Fletch75]

CajunScot,

I think you may be my new best friend. LOL. I think that sharing History with people is awesome. Once you really get into things, you understand why something happened not just what. then, like you said about Wolfe and Quebec, you can see that at Culloden his actions made made him who he was.

JackDaw.
, Cajun Scot beat me to it about trying to expand on things that the populus has little basic knowledge of makes it very difficult. Being in the military and an instructor I try to teach a little of the "Profession of Arms" to my students. It helps if they understand who/what went on before them. Not just "I came in for the college money." If they understand how our founding fathers came up with the Constitution and what they went through, what the Continental Army went through, it gives some understanding of the sacrifices (Even in the Air Force) we have to make today, to remain free and what the oath of enlistment really means.

Sorry, didn't mean to completely preach or anything. Thats just how I feel about History and my job as an NCO in the USAF.

Thanks,

Darin

[Phil]

I think the way this thread has been diverted from a question about Scottish attitudes to and the teaching of the history of Culloden and the whole Jacobite rebellion into a discussion of the American revolution and even the present day American military reveals a lot about people's perception of history as it affects them. One of the original questions was, in fact, about the American revolutionary war and whether it was taught in British schools and I think the direction of this discussion demonstrates perfectly the futility of teaching subjects which have no relevance or interest to those being taught. That is that they simply ignore the irrelevant and concentrate on their own interests and beliefs except where some aspect strikes a romantic chord. This may be valiant kilted highlanders charging to their deaths at Culloden or it may be Davy Crockett immortalised by John Wayne valiantly dying at the Alamo. The true nuts and bolts of history are a different matter altogether though, and it would be conceited of anyone to believe that someone of a different cultural background would have any real understanding or interest in that culture apart from those with a true academic purpose. What shaped various peoples and their lives today was not usually some cataclysmic event such as a battle or other catastrophe but rather an evolutionary series of events of which the battle or whatever was simply one. A knowledge of history allows one to put these events into some sort of rational perspective that is not coloured by a romantic view of events and helps you to understand how present day attitudes have been formed as a result.

[Fletch75]

Phil,

I agree that we have gotten away from my original question. I realized that as soon I got off my high horse, which happened after I hit the "post" button.
We always refer back to what we know when discussing things. Not too many Scots sounded off on this so it became what people have read and their opinions likened to our own education.

My original intent was to find out if they taught the events of the Jacobite uprising, in Scotland, as a mistake for CES, but a largely good event because it allowed Scotland to continue on its path of enlightenment. Battles are usually a culmination of the long events you mentioned.

As far as the American Revolution being taught in Britain, I was merely using it as an example. I don't expect the Brits to go in depth on that war, especially since they lost. Each country has its own long history to teach to its citizens. I was interested in the, for lack of a better term, "the losers" side of the story. However, here in America, each state teaches its own history as well as US history at some point in the person's school career. I just assumed since Scotland is it's own entity, that that would happen there.

[Phil]

I think your original question has been answered in so far as two of us Scots have confirmed that there is no formal education in our schools here concerning the Jacobite rebellions culminating at Culloden. I am not sure that there is anything particularly positive in teaching these particular events in that after Culloden Jacobism became pretty much of an irrelevance and the Industrial Revolution together with the growth of the British Empire and all that entailed became the deciding influence on subsequent events. As far as the American revolution, while not wishing to diminish its importance in any way to the American people, Britain at that time was becoming the most highly industrialised nation in the world and, together with amassing the most extensive colonial empire the world had ever seen was undoubtedly more preoccupied in that direction. The loss of the American colonies was probably not a sufficiently significant factor in Britain's subsequent history to compete with the hugely successful advances elsewhere, opportunities which Scots successfully exploited all around the world.

[Fletch75]

Phil,

Thank you. We as Americans are taught our history at the possible cost of realizing what was going on in the rest of the world. I might add that I am at that point in the book where the Scottish are getting ready to boost into the industrial revolution, as you said. We don't talk much about what we did to the native Americans because, overall, it was better for the country's growth. I like to get others opinions, especially on world events because we get a sometimes tainted view.

Hopefully I didn't come off too arrogant. I have a genuine interest and thirst for knowledge of any kind, especially my heritage, and how it all plays into the world stage. Hopefully one day I will be able to visit Scotland.

Thanks again.

Darin