...On The British Empire. We ruled most of the world. Now their trying to scrap British History in British schools?

Just wondering what fellow British MSers think of this. I think it's an insult, because how are people going to know about what the Commonwealth is. In my school, we learned about how the first World War started, then the rise of Nazis, then bloody French Revolution, or some kind of Revolution. We should have learned how Parliament was set up. How the Angles and Saxons invaded Briton and created the Britain we know.

Anyone else agree with me?

I agree with you, on the point that national history should be the most important thing, not learning about the Paleoliticum and craps like that/

The people that are really interested in their history will have no problem finding more information. There are undoubtably more history classes for those who find an interest in it.

One must remember that there is a limit to what the schools can give you on their own (meaning obligatory history classes) but I can't imagine that the average student just can't decide to take history classes at the college or university level, am I right?

lol damnated you sound you like you got way too many 4's at history last year
anyway i *love* history so,national,universal,wtf?i'm in.but still universal history is much more important imo,because flooding your brain with such shit like they used to teach us in the 4th grade,stuff like "and then the brave and mighty tr00 romanian warrior and leader Mihai Viteazu the Godsent got horrificly backstabbed by the so-cowardly-as-not-to-be-written-with-a-capital-letter-at-the-beggining general basta and so transilvania,wallachia and moldavia got plunged into an era of vasalic darkness,serving under the brainless hungarians(no offence damnated )and/or turks"i fucking hate that....i never understood the need of over-the-top romantisations(sure i like power metal,but it's not all like that).also if you look at the political situation of the time,supposedly stupid answered questions like "those idiot persians!!omfg how could they have been half a million(really,they were half a million)and be held in place completely by the 300(yes,three hundred)spartan warriors,of which all died in battle,only one fleed and the other commited suicide..you start to think "woah!!!those unbelievably tr00 and chivalrous guys!!!i'll write a song about them!!" but then you think about the persian army-they weren't at all "moralized" by seeing 298 men armed to the teeth still standing before their charge,plus persians were as good soldiers as you would be if someone gave you a hayfork,plus you need to consider the utter crapiness of their weapons,mass produced,keep in mid that they also kind of hated their emperor and wouldn't actually die just so he can boast about killing ~300 men with some 2000 times more men.Then-the spartan army,disciplined so tough that we even kept the word "spartan" for saying who is a fanatically disciplined and hardened man,so fanatical that people even threw their young from cliffs,should they be poor warriors.then,the good quality of their weapons AND armor,whereas the persians had only an iron blade attached to a long stick as a spear and no armor,except for the pro warriors.also,the fact that they make a last stand,not to be killed running from the persians,in some forgotten vilage.this is just about the only "chivalrous" thing i find in this battle.
history IS interesting right?

this is fucking stupid. in the '04 world cup, there was serious discussion about making it illegal to hang the english flag from your house because it could be considered racist. while at the same time, i saw a signs at a theme park the other day that had english writing and punjabi (it is punjabi right? correct me if im wrong). i mean, these actions give them impression that british people should feel ashamed of the fact that they are british in their own country, but muslims can come live here and not even attempt to learn the language.

and people wonder where the BNP gets its support! this just creates a them and us mentality. are the government trying to encourage nationalism?

Written by Valentin B on 02.08.2006 at 14:49

lol damnated you sound you like you got way too many 4's at history last year

I didn't really, I know those things, but hated it. This whole 'let's learn universal history' is a crap after a while. Shure, one should know the history, but briefly, and know that little good. I'm dead serious, when I'm saying that we in Romania 'learn' the most, and know almost nothing.

I really hate the thing that some time now, being a nationalist is a bad thing, and I think this is why we don't learn that much national history: they want to kill our love for our nation, from the start. This is the manipulation that I was talking about in my other thread.

Scrapping national history? That's really ridiculous. I think people should learn about their own countries' past. It's interesting and most of the historical sites are right in their back garden. You learn interesting things such as how places got their names and features. Also, it does good for your 'local' geography. So many times I've sat in history class and I've heard people say "Why are we learning about Russian history?! We're not Russian," and although I enjoy learning about the history of other countries I think the country should learn about their own past. If it's scrapped it's sort of like learning to walk without being able to crawl.

Besides, I think British history is quite rich and very interesting. Learning about the Middle Ages was enjoyable for me. Also, I think British history is really easy to learn

I dont think school history education is enough - if you really want and need anything more, you have to read it for yourself. Everything they teach you in the school is mostly decided by the Department of Education. And I have noticed that what they teach you isnt actually 100% true - I see it almost every day when I have another lecture in university. These flaws arent big, but they are pretty essential in some cases. I wont bring them out, because they are mostly about Estonian history

Another thing, how the Covernment dictates what you learn, is Russian example - even today thay are teached that Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania voluntarily became a part of the Soviet Union. I really doubt that your usual history book in Russia says anyhing big about crimes Stalin committed and how he let annex the Baltic States.

I think its stupid to think, that you should only learn about your own countries history. If you come from Europe, you cant learn your countries history without learning anything else about Russia, Germany, France, Sweden, Portugal, Spain etc. - they are all connected. Dont you remember that almost half of Europe was once dominated by one family - the Habsburgs. Sure national history should come first, but you shouldnt forget that you are not alone in the world.

Written by UnholyMenace on 06.08.2006 at 17:29
I really doubt that your usual history book in Russia says anyhing big about crimes Stalin committed and how he let annex the Baltic States.

I think its stupid to think, that you should only learn about your own countries history. If you come from Europe, you cant learn your countries history without learning anything else about Russia, Germany, France, Sweden, Portugal, Spain etc. - they are all connected. Dont you remember that almost half of Europe was once dominated by one family - the Habsburgs. Sure national history should come first, but you shouldnt forget that you are not alone in the world.

i didn't learn about the stalinist purges at school at school. i don't think even remember hearing his name mentioned so its not that russian schools are being biased (anymore than other countries).

we don't only learn about our own countries history but obviously it makes sense if you live in britian to learn more about british history than french history.