23% of brits thinks Winston Churchill is made up

[Peck of Arabia]

My History Education wasn't too bad, espeicially at A-Level where our school rejected the populist subjects of the 20th century (16th C Europe, 17th C Europe, Way Hay!)

But I ended up helping out in a year 9 History class and I was appaulled (or I would be if I could spell it) to view that they spent one lesson learning about the alliances of pre-WW1 Europe, 3 lessons on life in the trenches, and a case study on why soldiers enlisted- and that counted for WW1

World War 2 involved How unfair Versailles was, How Hitler got to power coupled with Making election posters for the Nazi party (which were then stuck on the wall...) a brief mention of Krystallnacht, half a lesson on the Holocaust, a case study on Dunkirk and then a rush to get onto the Cold War

How can anybody get a solid notion of the past without taking History further or outside reading?

 

[cthom]

my school history classes:

roman history
russian revolution
french revolution
the depression (in the U.S!)
WWII (and only because i got to choose. otherwise i could have gone through schooling having learned zero about our history).

almost forgot: the balkan wars... why?

 

[Dubai Vol]

I spent an entire year studying English history in school when I was 13. Early on we had to memorise every monarch starting with William the Conqueror right through to Elizabeth II, the dates of their reigns, and their houses. Every exam was purely essay: a question or statement would be on the blackboard when we came in and we would spend an hour writing an essay on it. We were required to read numerous books, including at least on historical novel, and take copious notes from class lecture. I don't think we even had an official textbook.

And this was an American school.

 

[Pendragon65]

In the UK history is used as a tool for social engineering we deny our past history at our peril. We are made to feel guilty about our past and only seem to be taught about the negative things that happened. We have so many good things as well as the bad. Historical figures are never put in their historical context or historical period Ref Slavery the UK did more thanybody to eradicate the trade yet we are told to apologise to all and sundry!!!. PS the Empire was not all bad but the kids are never told that.

 

[GinandTonic]

My history classs tended towards what the lived experiences of peoples were. What was it like to be a peasant in roman britain (fairly awful), post roman britain (similarly awful), victorian britain (still fairly awful) or a slave on a slave ship (really very awful) or in a concentration camp (just astonishingly awful).

 

[Mr_Fusty]

But I ended up helping out in a year 9 History class and I was appaulled (or I would be if I could spell it) to view that they spent one lesson learning about the alliances of pre-WW1 Europe, 3 lessons on life in the trenches, and a case study on why soldiers enlisted- and that counted for WW1

World War 2 involved How unfair Versailles was, How Hitler got to power coupled with Making election posters for the Nazi party (which were then stuck on the wall...) a brief mention of Krystallnacht, half a lesson on the Holocaust, a case study on Dunkirk and then a rush to get onto the Cold War

I love history, and considered becoming a history teacher at some stage. I decided against it - because I knew that the National Curriculum meant I had to teach that stuff, but with no extra time so I could actully join up the dots and get kids to understand the rudements of our nation's history.

I remember being inspired by an old humanities teacher, over a decade ago now, who spent his lessons getting us to try to capture a medieval castle, pick a good site for a colony in the Americas, how to survive the Black Death, the bad points of being a Pharaoh (having to marry your sister has to win that one!) and understand how jihad created the world we know today. He would be happy to answer questions, as long as they were somehow related to the subject he taught.

The school he was teaching at was an utter 'sink' school, and he knew that only a couple of each class would ever go onto A-Levels, let alone university (their boast that year was that 1 person had gone to uni) so he just tried to show the kids that the humanities could be interesting, instead of force-feeding them the contents of the exam paper which happens now.

The fact that I still remember his name is testiment that he got through to at least one of his pupils....

 

[Pendragon65]

So true Mr Fusty without the bits & pieces a lot of whats taught can't be put in to proper context so history is soooo very generalised and open to misinterperation (did i spell that right). Just finished night shift anything can happen HeHEHE.

 

[Brighteye]

When I see a news report about Americans being stupid, I usually see the questions, and if I don't, I'll be happy to have an American point out if the study is flawed.
When I see a report about British people being stupid, but without even explaining the questions asked, I point out the flaw.
What if the question was something like 'Are popular perceptions of these people myths or truths?'
Then we'd have people saying that Churchill is a myth not because they think he didn't exist, but because they think that myths have grown up about his persona and achievements.

 

[raketooy]

Not original at all guys. Scroll to the bottom... 3000 people surveyed. Way more than the amount of people to give a view of the country if the statisticians paid any attention in their statistics class.

Could be 3000 newborn babies. I would like to see the original words of the questions. There might be something in them, assuming that the survey is real in first place.

 

[mdwh]

Subjects like History and Geography suffer in the UK of what I call 'small picture syndrome' in which children get detailed info in a few topics, such as Tudors or WWII, but not the 'big picture' stuff like how to locate Madagascar on a map or tell us what happened between Roman Britian(c460AD) and the Battle of Bosworth (1485AD) The aformentioned nephew shocked me a couple of years back because he spent 3 months studying St Lucia for geography but was unable to find the UK on a map.

Whilst I don't condone missing out on completely basic facts, in general I'd say it's better to study a few areas in depth, than try to cover everything at a shallow level.

History is about teaching skills to analyse evidence - it's not simply a list of dates. Geography is also about teaching skills, and not place names. Someone who has learned those skills is then in a better position to apply that to other areas, than someone who has simply memorised a load of dates or places.

Not that this is necessarily relevant to this poll (if true - my education of analysing evidence tells me to be sceptical unless more evidence is found), as obviously anyone thinking Churchill is a myth whilst King Arthur, Robin Hood or Jesus is a known historical fact hasn't analysed their evidence very well at all.

I spent an entire year studying English history in school when I was 13. Early on we had to memorise every monarch starting with William the Conqueror right through to Elizabeth II, the dates of their reigns, and their houses. Every exam was purely essay: a question or statement would be on the blackboard when we came in and we would spend an hour writing an essay on it. We were required to read numerous books, including at least on historical novel, and take copious notes from class lecture. I don't think we even had an official textbook.

And this was an American school.

And this is the sort of thing I consider to be useless. Great, you're a walking dictionary, textbook or almanac, but pupils are left knowing nothing of how to study history. It's like someone who knows every times table, but doesn't have a clue about maths.

One thing that is true is that UK history tends to be very focused on British history AFAIK. Interestingly, the same newspapers that claim educational standards are falling also throw a wobbly if they think students are learning too much about "foreigners" and not enough about Britishness.

 

[Rossiya]

23% of Americans think that Winston Churchill is a brand of maple syrup.

By the way, it's SIR Winston Churchill.

 

[Mr_Fusty]

Good points made by all here

Of course, their are certain peroids that do require more attention than others, such as the two world wars and so on.

I am writing on the assumption that some 50% leave school with nil or near-nil knowlage in history (for many reasons, WWII is the exception. Every schoolboy/girl will know at least abit about it. This partly explains how some people can get quite arsey and stupid about the Germans in the UK)

I'm not in favour of the old-school learning of history (loads of dates and nothing else) because that is still near-usless with the possible exception of TV game shows.

The goverment was us to be paterotic about our nation. Unfortuantly, we have a many family secrets that are not taught in schools anymore - such as the Empire, our role in the slave trade to the Americas, how we used Australia for a dumping ground for people we didn't want here, how British incompetance in WWI cost a million men their lives and millions more scarred for life, how we utterly screwed up in the lead-up to WWII which then cost tens of millions of people their lives. The book 'Nasty things we did to the French' could run into several volumes alone.

Yes, I understand that every nation has it's dark episodes, but the majority of nations have pretty well faced up to them - for nations who do not learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them.

History is about teaching skills to analyse evidence - it's not simply a list of dates. Geography is also about teaching skills, and not place names. Someone who has learned those skills is then in a better position to apply that to other areas, than someone who has simply memorised a load of dates or places.

Well, I agree on that one, in thery. How I wish that History teaching in general was like that. I'm not insulting History teachers in general, for they are a (mainly) dedicated lot who have chosen to pass of the knowlage of our fourfathers, but instead have oft found themselves to be gloirifed teen-sitters with the task of getting as many as possible A-C in GCSE's at the end of Y11.

What I prepose is that with the meagre time & money avialible, we should at least attempt to give the next generation a basic working knowlage of at least their nation's history, and basic geographic knowlage in which they can build on throughout their lives - the current system means that people have pockets of infomation unconnected with anything else - which is mainly lost in a few years. I don't care how it is done - even a TV drama could do it as long as it is historically accurate.

By the way, it's SIR Winston Churchill.

I know. But I'm a republican. So I don't use worn-out usless titles.

 

[Rossiya]

I know. But I'm a republican. So I don't use worn-out usless titles.

That makes two of us, being republicans. But there are republics in the world, cough Italy, that have titles, and many other republics do as well. I don't think that you need to be a monarchy to honour certain people with titles.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Howmany think he was an American Soldier?

 

[RedRalph]

We basically learned Ireland vs Britain, the French revolution, then towards the end the two world wars, thats more or less it...

 

[Mr_Fusty]

Saw that film. A little funny if you get really, really drunk or turn of your entire brain.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Saw that film. A little funny if you get really, really drunk or turn of your entire brain.

Indeed. Too bad too. It was a fine idea for a parody. I rented two movies when I saw that one. Also U-571. About on par with regard to history