When a yank starts talking about his shitty civil war assuming it was a major historical event that the whole world...

>when a yank starts talking about his shitty civil war assuming it was a major historical event that the whole world learns about at school

Attached: 1503332473594.png (685x582, 617K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

They figure everything that gets a movie every couple of years is somehow important
>Capeshit movies become a thing, Trump wants to have a space force

It was a historical even though and most Western countries learn about it. At least we did.

OI IM BR-ISH OUI OWNED 'ALF THE WORLD
FEN WE GAVE IT UP AND NOW WE'RE PAKIS

Attached: h48w9hg.png (322x417, 10K)

Based and trailerpilled

What did you learn about it? How much about US history did you learn in general?

>when a Brit starts talking about his shitty Crimea-freaking-river war assuming it was a major historical event that the whole world learns about at school

it was a historical event yeah, just not a major one
me driving to tesco an hour ago is technically a historical event

>learning about the american civil war
Literally why?

We dont even learn about the american revolutionary war and we in that

everyone is like that when they talk about their countries.

what are you like when you talk about Cromwell or the Tudors? same thing.

What the fuck, even I learned about the war of the roses

to be fair, our core national history curriculum doesn't even acknowledge the existence of the empire

Really? What do you learn about?

We dont learn any of this shit at school

>egypt
>greeks
>romans and celts
>tudors
>industrial revolution with a little bit of empire and slavery
>ww2 (mostly about how bad hitler was and what it was like to live in britain at the time)

How? Its a pretty major part of British history

i wouldn't automatically assume foreigners to be knowledgeable about cromwell
yes we do, it's part of the compulsory curriculum

We learned he was some nutjob who got dabbed on by Willem the third

I didnt learn shit about cromwell in the 2000s

we did in year 8 when history was compulsory in 2008
you must have been ill for that segment

Why is American history so boring?

Attached: 1532199691785.jpg (879x1024, 120K)

Year 7 was normans
Year 8 was industrial rev and slavery (again)

It is tought here as well, but it's only like 1-2 pages from the school book.

We didnt have history books at school unless you opted to do gcses in which case the teacher would just photocopy relevant chapters for you

You don't you have history books? Wtf

povvo

we do

No

We also dont have to study maths after the age of 16. Many british university graduates do not even know what calculus is lol.

We never learnt about the Civil War, but for some reason we spent ages being taught about Native Americans. Fuck knows why.

Cromwell had nothing to do with William III

>implying those exam board books are history books and not just a guide to the curriculum aimed at making you give cookicutter answers in exams

Yes, that's because you are the yank that uses a Swiss proxy. Just like the Brit, Israeli, American, and Fin, told you yesterday. You will always get caught because you can't stop yourself from posting like a typical Amerimutt.
This is the part of the thread where you switch to your Canadian proxy now

>falling for yank tricks

Attached: raf,750x1000,075,t,fafafa_ca443f4786.u1.jpg (750x1000, 49K)

You get a whole year about Normans!?

>the british education system

Is this true?

I don't remember it being a full year. If I recall it was like one term of very surface level shit on the Battle of Hastings

Yeah, once you've finished GCSEs at 16 you go onto 4 A Levels, one of which usually gets dropped after the first year, and then when we get into uni we just do almost entirely the subject that we picked, except for maybe a few modules which overlap with other disciplines

How much do you learn about the High Middle Ages? Do you learn about the Anarchy, Simon de Montfort?

Very little. I don't remember the Anarchy really being touched upon at all. We go through brief overviews of all sorts of shit like the Industrial Revoltuon etc. before starting to really focus on something with WW1 at around year 10. Then it's like 3 years of Nazi Germany, although we were lucky enough to get the Russian Revolution thrown in during our last year of A Levels which was a welcome break

Nope, skips from the Normans to the Tudors.

You sound like a butthurt chink

Nobody in Canada calls Americans yanks

Well that's a shame, so you just never talk about the Plantagenets?

We learned about richard the 3rd in english about shakespeare

>we spent ages being taught about Native Americans. Fuck knows why.
Britain sided with the Natives at every opportunity to banter Americans

Your fucking country supported the confederates for cotton for your industry. I dont expect a kraut or nip to be concious of it but you at least should be.

Okay proxfag

Attached: 1541988142846.png (496x390, 33K)

Less than a footnote in our history

Also our history curriculum is pretty topsy turvy

For me in 2010 year 8 was civil war
Year 9 was industrial rev
Year 10 was crime and punishment
Yr 11 was the cotton industry

in what light is America painted in your curriculum? Are we the bad guys?

>American education

Britain is the only reason the south didn't win the war

>Trump wants to have a space force
We sort of already have been doing something similar. The air force has two of these.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37

It might've also had something to do with the fact that the confederacy was primarily agricultural and the Union was industrial. It's hard to wage a war with no factories.

I learned about nazism and medicine in yr 10 and 11

America didn't even show up in the curriculum until the end of WWI

and why not? they owe much of their language and culture to the normans. the English coat of arms is the Norman coat of arms. the outcome of the battle of Hastings shaped the identity of England and by extension, the UK.

I dont thi k we learn about you at school

We have tv for that

Some of it took place on the prairies out west and in Indian Country.

We expect you to have picked up the basic facts of the American civil war from being on Jow Forums.

The war of Northern Aggression? Gotcha.

This has to be fucking bait
This as well

>i wouldn't automatically assume foreigners to be knowledgeable about cromwell
We do probably because his bullshit is partially tied to our history.

even we did wtf

The Wild West was no man's land, a land for thieves and murderers, both confederates and yankees alike. conflicts back east didn't matter as much to pioneers in the west, everybody was painting a target on everybody, including the sheriffs. It was about as Ancap as you can get.

More of just the South was a slave based economy that was attempting to secede due to the abolitionist sympathetic Republican party being elected.

TV is a shit medium to learn from desu

When we did the weird Native American module, American settlers were definitely depicted strongly as the bad guys, although some of the less savoury native traditions like scalping were touched upon

>Why is American history so boring?
Read about our early history. I realize based on where you live the wild west doesnt seem too interesting.

Attached: Bushy Run asmall.jpg (1300x956, 1.38M)

Not if you have industrial allies like France and Britian. The French were ready to go and their King wrote a letter to the British PM saying that it was tome to recognize the CSA. It was set to go for a vote before the parliament, and it was believed it would pass, when PM Palmerston delayed it.
Then the south lost Antietam, Lincoln put forth an early version of the emancipation proclamation (officially making it about slavery), and all hope of French and British help vanished forever.
If Palmerston hadn't stopped the vote, the south would have gotten French and British support and won. You owe your country to a Britsh viscount.

I swear we didnt

We spent too long on anglo saxons, normans, vikings, slavery

We had a lot of native American shit in school too (Denmark), which makes even less sense. I think plenty of teachers love the idea of noble savages that were ruthlessly killed off by the evil white man.

I wasn't criticizing it. England during the High Middle Ages is my specialty, I was actually jealous of the prospect. However it doesn't seem as if it is the case.

Let's be honest. Our history is not only the most important and relevant of amy country right now, it is the best. BASED George Washington and BASED RE Lee

It wouldn't be the only time that our country or the whole world for that matter survived because of a single person's decisions.

I'm starting to think half the Brit posts in this thread are bullshit unless the different countries have different curriculum.

>Battle of Bushy Run

That's British history though

Those (besides slavery) are the best though. Do you guys know about Æthelstan?

This thread caused my opinion of the British education system to significantly drop

Oligophrenia/10.

This guy makes reading American history all worth it

Attached: aburr_400x400.jpg (400x400, 21K)

Alfred and Aethelstan are really horribly undertaught. Genuinely makes me sad. Alfred was based as fuck and the kind of figure you'd want to be a rolemodel for English kids. But nah.

Washington was largely incompetent and a war criminal, he did do a good job in your revolt though. But then, he started it so he might as well be the one to end it too.
Robert E. Lee was a below average general and hurt the south more than he helped. The CSA did have a remarkable general though, Nathan Bedford Forrest. Unfortunately for the south, Lee (being a shitty general), failed to use Bedford Forrest effectively until it was too late

Different cities might have slightly different curriculums

>literally fund blockade runners to try to trade with the south
>upper class supports confederacy (rest apparently supported the norf)
>sell the confederacy warships
>somehow hurt them
The major reason for Britain not joining is they liked not starving and had other global interests.

>The Confederate strategy for securing independence was based largely on the hope of military intervention by Britain and France. That never happened because the US threatened war, which would have cut off much of Britain's food supply. A serious diplomatic dispute erupted over the "Trent Affair" in late 1861 but was resolved peacefully after five weeks.

Attached: 1544136922307.png (1024x1024, 1.13M)

I think the schools have some degree of choice. I seem to remember some of our exam papers having different sets of questions for different eras, so I think some schools would choose say, the English Civil War, while another might choose to teach WW1

>incompetent
As a general? Perhaps. As a President? Certainly not. He was effective and extremely BASED.
>war criminal
lol nobody gives a shit about your 18th century "oh no don't shoot the officer" and "stand in a straight line"

Lee wasn't the best but he was pretty good. He almost won the war 3 times, the third time he was foiled by a simple piece of paper being left on the ground

dont americans like study what boots and guns each platoon had because otherwise there's nothing to say to fill all the classes? together with complete bio of every minor character

No, there's a lot to cover in US history

do you study the close history too? like last 50 years? worst shit here is we barely get to post ww2 and dont learn shit about the present so we are illiterate when voting

We learn up until the end of the Cold War, and we dedicate a week or so for every 10 years from 1776 to 1990. Of course we spend more time on important events like the revolutionary war, civil war, etc.

>literally fund blockade runners to try to trade with the south
They didn't. They traded with southern blockade runners. You have to understand contemporary maritime law. A blockade was only legal as long as it was effective. An ineffective or "paper blockade" was not legal and no country was bound to recognise it.
>upper class supports confederacy (rest apparently supported the norf)
That's mostly true though "the norf" isn't quite right. Much of the textile industry was in the north and supported the south, though nearly all Brits were opposed to slavery
>sell the confederacy warships
Nope, those were private companies acting independently of their government.
>The major reason for Britain not joining is they liked not starving
America did send food but you are grossly exaggerating this
>The Confederate strategy for securing independence was based largely on the hope of military intervention by Britain and France.
Yes
>That never happened because the US threatened war, which would have cut off much of Britain's food supply.
It never happened because Palmerston stopped the vote and France wouldn't go without Britain
>A serious diplomatic dispute erupted over the "Trent Affair" in late 1861 but was resolved peacefully after five weeks.
Yes, and I encourage you to read more about Charles Wilkes, particularly the U.S.Ex.Ex. he's a fascinating and deranged character that Herman Melville largely based Captain Ahab on.

uhm so you do the french revolution in 1 week too?