Jump to content

British History


Rob Roy
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have been doing some temping in primary schools in Brive for the past couple of months and it occurred to me that any British children being educated in France will obviously be given French history lessons. Do British parents make any sort of provision for teaching British history at home, or will these children grow up not knowing their mother country's history - or indeed does it matter or do they care?

Personally I think it is a shame if they know nothing, or very little, of the rich history of Britain, but I would be interested to hear what others think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

When we were living in France I would occassionally mention and refer to historical British things.  If we had stayed I would have continued and probably developed in to teaching my children elements of British history.  However, if my children did show a disdain for it I would take my foot of the pedal and not choose to enforce it.  It is things like teaching of history which shapes childrens' childhood and their culture.  Sometimes it is very hard for children of mixed cultures to fit in and am not sure that they actually ever do. Saying that, mixed cultures are more commonplace now than they ever were, so this might be the norm in the future.

Incidentally it would have been quite difficult for us as a family as my husband is Irish and his opinion on British history is different to what mine was - he sees the British as marauders and bullies!!!

Deby

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can I just come off-topic momentarily?  Wow!  Nice gaff, Deby!  How come your rooms are so cheap?

Back on topic - I imagine that the way history is taught at school in England these days is somewhat different to when I was under the strap.  Back then we were the noble enlighteners bringing order and civilisation to unruly, feckless and thankless natives.  And Irish persons. 

Ah, history with Paddy McKendry.  A tall, flame-haired type with enormous hands.  I was sitting at my desk at the back of the class one day when I said something out of order and he came running down the aisle and clipped me around the ear.  I made a huge play of toppling over sideways taking the desk with me.  Happy days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been considering the history issue also.  My 10 yr old is interested, only because he is interested in the subject.  My daughter on the otherhand has no interest in what happened yesterday.  We have all the horrible history books...my son has just finished the 2nd world war...and is now apparently covering it at school.  We have the anne frank dvd.....and when her name came up he was amazed that the french had heard of her!!!!!!!!! I will not force the British history on the children, but obviously it comes up alot along with the french history.  I am keen to learn more of the French history myself.  I wish I had paid more attention when I was a kid!! most of the facts I know of British history is what I have only recently picked up when I was an LSA in a primary school!!!Whistles [Www]  interesting topic though,
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both mine had to learn french history from young right upto BAC level but ocassionally there were bits of relevent english history intermingled although not a lot. Both of ours know a fair bit about the first and second world wars but previously to that especially the industrial revolution and Cromwell and those characters, they know nothing at all and it has never come up to be of any relevance.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Rob Roy"]

Do British parents make any sort of provision for teaching British history at home, or will these children grow up not knowing their mother country's history - or indeed does it matter or do they care?

Personally I think it is a shame if they know nothing, or very little, of the rich history of Britain, but I would be interested to hear what others think.

[/quote]

From what I see of the UK education that my kids are getting in their primary and secondary schools, the teaching of British history is not great at all! In fact, I think that if we want our kids to actually know their mother country's history, even if we live in the UK, we need to supplement the school curriculum with home study (should the children be interested, I ought to add - most of the time they aren't).  When I was tought history of my country (Poland) we studied it really thoroughly and in chronological order so that events made some sense (this was interespersed with learning about major historical events in other countries too).  It came as a shock to me that the British history here is taught in such an odd way, jumping from ancient Rome to Victorians, to Henry VIII, to WW2, back to the Egyptians etc.  Ask any average school kid visiting the Trafalgar Square who Nelson was, and you will get a blank stare.  I find it very sad!  I hope the French system is better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was taught history chronologically as far as I remember (at British School) but it was a long time ago.

Just an idea, but one way that may be interesting to children is to do some family history. This can be a real eye opener. I discovered that I had German ancestors and my husband, French. Also some of my husbands relatives emigrated to the USA, some came back, some stayed. It is often social history but triggered by world events.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is certainly taught chronologically in High Schools in the UK, but it is such a vast subject that it is impossible to cover every event. Teachers still have a lot of choice regarding what aspects they teach and what they omit, in fact only the holocaust is a compulsory element.

History has moved away from being about 'facts and dates' and 'the great and the good' to why things happen in History, which in my opinion gives the students far more transferable skills than being able to recall a certain date or person. There is often more focus on social history too , which children can relate to far better than Kings and Queens.

I remember when my son had a look at the Common Wealth War Graves Commission website and entered his surname and saw just how many young men died with his name along, brough home the grim realities of war far better than watching some jumpy old black and white film clips.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Viv"]

It is certainly taught chronologically in High Schools in the UK, but it is such a vast subject that it is impossible to cover every event. Teachers still have a lot of choice regarding what aspects they teach and what they omit, in fact only the holocaust is a compulsory element.

 

[/quote]

Sorry Viv but none of the schools I know teach history chronologically nowadays and it's a great loss. There seems to be a "pick and mix" (or do I mean "hit and miss"?) attitude to what is taught which must be very confusing. For GCSE, my foster son studied the Nazis, History of Medicine, the American West and something local. He left with no historical understanding of the chronology of events whatsoever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Kathy C wrote

Sorry Viv but none of the schools I know teach history chronologically nowadays and it's a great loss. There seems to be a "pick and mix" (or do I mean "hit and miss"?) attitude to what is taught which must be very confusing. For GCSE, my foster son studied the Nazis, History of Medicine, the American West and something local. He left with no historical understanding of the chronology of events whatsoever.

History is taught chronologically ending with events of the 20th century by the end of year 9, which is when compulsory history lessons end.

The GCSE courses do select themes from different time periods often with a local study added too. There is a strong element of chronology in the Medicine through time course eg prehistoric trepanning to open heart surgery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How weird, Gay - I've no idea why you can't see the real quote as I can in both IE and Firefox.

I get the impression that if we believe the history portrayed in the cinema (Hah! - shame it is so influential) and taught in English schools (at least as it has been reported to me) then there was very little good be derived from Britain's expansionist period, from whenever you count it to have started (QE 1? earlier?) to the eventual decline of the "Empire" in the 20th century.

I don't throw this up as a history scholar, I know buggar all, but I just get the feeling that when it comes to history it is open season on Brits - and the English in particular - for acts done by ancestors in ages past.

One (not often expressed) view is that our forebears exploited whatever opportunities they could, as did the people of every other state, and as people and states continue to do to this day.   The fault of the Brits was to be too successful and then to lose control.

I'm now withdrawing my head from the parapet.  I'll leave Sven's there to be shot at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Viv, thanks for the clarification on this. I had expected the chronological order to extend up until GCSE, rather than to finish in year 9. It seems a shame that this doesn't follow through for GCSE or that there's no connection between themes available at this level. No wonder history is unpopular at so many schools.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

About 30 years ago, there was a piece of research which showed that history was the least popular subject at school and yet was the most popular subject for non-fiction borrowing from public libraries.  The conclusion reached was that the way history was taught was the problem.  Since then, there have been some attempts to "improve" the way history is taught.  One of the option was to teach history by topics, rather than in chronological order - hence things like medicine through the ages etc.  Another was to use local history as a base from which (it was hoped) children's interests would develop outwards.

I agree with an earlier poster - the Brits and especially the English, have been given the impression that all the ills of the world are as a result of their past "crimes".  For example, around the time of the invasion of Iraq, Jack Straw stated that the problems of modern Iraq were a direct result of British involvement in the past......

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At my daughter's primary in France history is taught chronologically. She started with prehistoric man and so far this year has moved from the Greeks and Romans to Charlemagne and the Hundred Years War. The chronological approach has certainly helped her understand history better and has given her an insight into British history as well (Joan of Arc, Romans, Celts, Richard the Lionheart etc...) I'm fortunate in that she has always had a love of history and can understand things irrespective of where in the world they took place. Surely looking at history globally rather than from one country's perspective is the best approach. This doesn't mean that we ignore famous events, dates, figures in British, French history but see how they all fit in together. My only problem with the French approach so far is an inability to pronounce Vercingetorix!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats what my two learned here, characters like Clovis,Charlemagne etc and for the BAC recently a selection of different eras but all the relevent dates had to be memorised off by heart in chronological order - even I learned a few whilst going over and over them.  At one stage I almost expected Asterix and Obelix to turn up somewhere
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes it was important to our family that the children knew their own country history as well as the history of the country they live in, which was one of the reason we choose a french state school with a small british section, this way they learn both histories side by side right up to the OIBac   when in fact they take their exams in English on British history. 

Lollie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Rob. My son is Australian and at school in France. He studies French history, no probs there as I dont expect him to study Oz history in France. However, and please, no-one jump down my neck about this. Its the way the the French teach modern history with regards to WW1 and WW2 that I have a problem with. With regards to the latter, the french kids in his class have no idea that Australians were here, or the British, or Americans, back then. It seems the French won it all on their own!. albeit with ' a little help' from their friends. Are French kids taught about the Vichy Govt? my Mum attended school in the 30's and 40's and they were taught all about Petain.  Why do the French not acknowledge this part of their history?. It happened!. On another note, Ive seen how British history is taught in Northern Ireland, apparently history started there with the Plantations and no-one existed there before that!. Irish...who are they?.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wen, don't worry. French kids are taught about the Vichy gov while they are learning about the second world war. (which means in 3eme in collège) It's difficult for the kids to come to terms with the idea that real life french people could act like this (as opposed to naughty n-a-z-i-s who were foreign and who don't seem quite real) and it's only the more recent generation of French history teachers who feels comfortable teaching it.

I agree with your comments on the two world wars. You sometimes get the feeling that the french did everything and the rest were there to help out a bit. But when I think back to how it was taught when I was at school in the UK, the teachers obviously put the accent on what happened to and for the British. It's just something that makes it seem more real. I remember my sister (in O level history) learning all about life in the blitz. I wouln't expect french kids to study that. On the other hand they do more about life during the occupation.

Back to the original question. I have never really thought about teaching British history to my kids. I just drop in comments as and when I feel the need. They learn French history at school and when they come home and talk about Alesia (I'm another person who can't pronounce- or here, spell- the name of the French leader) I tell them about Boudicca. This year, the eldest (6eme) has been doing ancient civilisations, so there hasn't been much for me to do apart from mentioning the fact that the Romans got as far as Britian. (which he knows from asterix anyway) A lot of what is taught in French history lessons is obviously french orientated, but there's also quite a lot which is pretty universal. Next year, he'll be doing the moyen age so he'll be doing things like the invention of printing and the influence of the church. They are neither french not British.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="wen"] It seems the French won it all on their own!. albeit with ' a little help' from their friends. Are French kids taught about the Vichy Govt? my Mum attended school in the 30's and 40's and they were taught all about Petain.  Why do the French not acknowledge this part of their history?.[/quote]

And in Britain, you'd swear they won both wars on their own, although the Yanks upped moral by providing cigarettes and nylons.[;-)]   Every nation tells its own history in its own way and generally concentrates on the experience of its own citizens to the exclusion of others, which is unhelpful to everyone but there are time constraints in schools too! 

I'd be suprised if the Austrailans got much of a mention in UK history books other than as being a penal colony where criminals went.  As for Irish history taught in Britain - I lost count of the amount of English people I met who still think the Republic is part of Britain and are a bit hazy about whether Belfast is a part of the UK or Ireland now, never mind whether or not they were taught about the less savoury aspects of their activies in Ireland over the centuries.  You can't possibly understand anything of what is going on in Northern Ireland today without a rudimentary knowledge of Irish history and yes, understanding Britain's role as an empire builder in Iraq and the Middle East will help people understand what is going on now.   I'm sure my history knowledge has big gaps caused by a bias in our state education (we're certainly weren't taught about the benefits of Empire building other than it made some British people very very rich[;-)] )

We studied two history courses to GCSE equivalents  - Irish and European, and then the same to Bac. I think it's crucial to look at other nations internal politics.   I think it will be really great for kids living over here to get taught French history in school, and then get another perspective at home.  History isn't always about facts, it's as much about perspectives. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello,

 My French girlfriend was surprised to find out the extent of British suffering and hardship during WW2.

She had no idea the U.K was bombed!

As for Irish history in U.K schools...

 I only found out as an adult when I made a cycle tour of Eire and started to read a history book during a rainy hostel stay...

I came across a monument to the I.R.A who in 1920 routed a force of 1200 Black and Tans/Royal Hampshires  capturing most of their equipment and inflicting heavy casualties.

 Great boys own stuff!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 1940-1945 period is considered an essential part of French history to the point of obsession and "devoir de memoire" is very, very, very strong for that period. At school, it's covered in Troisieme, Premiere, and Terminale (part of philosophy class.) It's fairly recent though. I had a historiography class about it, so if you want to follow me... :-)

It went in three phases: first, roughly 1945-1970, the "myth" that everyone really was a resister was set up. Mostly it was created because France was in the midst of a civil war and there had to be SOMETHING to recreate national unity. The focus was on the military aspects. not much if anything taught in schools. In 1970 the "myth" was shattered both by Paxton and by Ophuls. The focus turned to collaborators and deportation of the Jews. Subject integrated to the national curriculum and kept as part of "exam years" to ensure it will be taught in detail. In the late 1980s the concept of "duty to remember" was coined and there wasn't a year without a film about the period. In 1985, on prime time TV, Lanzman's documentary SHOAH was shown over several weeks and the term "Shoah" adopted.  In the past few years January 27 (date of Auschwitz' liberation) has been dedicated to crimes against humanity and genocides (Shoah, Rwanda, Cambodia, it depends.) Glorification, mortification, obsession: the book "A past that won't pass" discusses how "duty to remember" came to be. Now the obsession seems to turn since the Algerian War has become the focus of the "repressed past".

1940-1945 history in French schools is... French-centric . And it really only exists as 1939-1945, never as 1939-1940. :) The British only appear on cue, to rescue the derelict French army in Dunkirk (one thing that sticks out in my memory: French soldiers in the Maginot Line refused to give their weapons to the Germans *after their officers had surrendered*, stayed there several days until their own officers promised to courtmarshall and shoot them for unsubordination, "escaped" their officers and ran to Dunkirk with their weapons.They drop them to get into small boats that will take them to safety.) So the 1940 campaign is seen as a major leadership disaster, from the Maginot line concept proper to the general June 1940 situation.  Churchill hardly appears and the Blitz isn't very big in their texts although both are mentioned and discussed ("London alone did not fall"). London is mostly known as the place whence Charles de Gaulle did his "appel du 18 juin": "Ici Londres, les Francais parlent aux Francais".

On the other hand, if the Blitz isn't big, they don't really focus on the bombings in France either and not really on the campaign (except to disparage officers - there's even a saying "etre en retard d'une guerre", meaning "to be very, very, very slow on the uptake", coming from that time.) I also remember seeing an image depicting the French equipment - they had 1/100th the number of German planes, something ridiculous like this, because the officers didn't believe planes were important except for observation.... and everything along those lines (ie., willing soldiers but incompetent officers, poor choice of material, no strategy + the Army still aristocratic, antisemitic, antirepublican... There's much background given about the fascist leagues of France, one famous guy said the defeat was a "diving surprise" apparently and he was popular with Army officers!)

The main focus is on l'Occupation - those in government who chose to collaborate, those who in their private lives chose to collaborate, the resisters (armed or not - I think they're slowly taking into account women's roles), and those who didn't know what to think and did nothing, plus the increasing mistreatment and deportation of Jews. Also the difference between nazi-occupied France and the new "French State" known as "Vichy" (as opposed to the French Republic). At the end, D-Day is presented (as a British, Canadian, and American endeavor, and not like saving Private Ryan would have us think, a purely American initiative. :->) + the fighting& the dead,  the "Das Reich" column and Oradour are also discussed (perhaps more than in other parts, since Oradour isn't that far away from here, I think???) The "devoir de memoire" duty is to make kids realize that these people could be us and what they did could be our own choices, to discuss how propaganda functions.

I'd say that few points are left out, except perhaps the "cleansing" in 1945 (although I believe they do show pictures of nakes, shaved women dragged in the street.) And I don't think they present that period as a quasi-civil-war. Otherwise, the "duty to remember" aspect makes it almost blasphemous not to treat that period thoroughly.

If you feel like a fun recap of this through film: start with Jeux Interdits, then La Grande vadrouille, then Lacombe Lucien and Les guichets du Louvre, then Au revoir les enfants, Les enfants de Chavagnes, La bicyclette bleue, and Monsieur Batignole.

This last film shows really, really well the more recent "consciousness": French responsibilities, absence of heroism, day-to-day difficulties, degrees of antisemitism*, propaganda mechanisms, etc. Batignole is essentially a guy who could have become a B*** and came to realize what was happening purely out of -what he considers bad- luck; and even when he knows what's going on, he doesn't really want to act, even though his inner good guy kicks in, pulling him apart from his family and his interests (financial, social...) NO heroism, no grandeur, no "myth" in there.

*(There's a foul French guy who's a nazi mouthpiece, who writes hateful propaganda really wants to kill Jews, but Batignole himself, the "regular guy", isn't blameless either with his greed, callous disregard, and ignorance.)

It is also very interesting in relation to the  civil disobedience movement taking place against "children roundups" or "chasse a l'enfant" as it's been called. It's been pointed out many times that, once again, as long as 'random strangers' were being picked up by the police, no one moved, but now that kids are being taken (even if it's not to be killed, it's still "deportation"), random people are reacting and thwarting the governement efforts. While the children's situation surely is different, the basic reaction comes from the same place, I think.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...