Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
I've just realised I know next to nothing about Admiral Nelson, except his last words and his column.
if that helps.
It was George V (the original George of the Jungle).
all my knowledge of British History is pretty much focused on Henry VIII
Thanks to years of pandering to right-wing obsessives, I have a full grasp of the Norman Invasion, Henry VIII, and the Nazis. It's a good thing, too, it's not like anything important happened between those things, like the Glorious Revolution, or the Industrial Revolution, or the Wars of the Roses - and of course, none of that filthy foreign history. Thirty Years' War? Never heard of it. Can't have had much effect upon world history, no sir...
and there do seem (or at least were when I did my GCSEs/A-Levels) to be choices from school to school of what to teach (my history A-Level involved a fair bit foreign history, although it was limited to the big European countries of the 19th century).
I mean I agree it's by no means perfect but the simple fact is there isn't time to teach everything and they have to make some choices somewhere.
Both World Wars get a huge amount of focus, but there's very little examination of the centuries of inter-European conflict that lead up to it (especially things like the Franco-Prussian War). Kids don't even learn the monarchs off by heart, and whilst it's true that an obsession with individuals tends to overlook broad social reasons for historical events, at least it would provide some kind of narrative to fit things into.
There needs to be some kind of compulsory module with a broad overview of the long-term history of Britain/Europe/Other nations and continents. I remember, as a kid, being really confused about certain things because they were just... there, when in the previous module they hadn't been. Like, where the fuck did the Austro-Hungarian Empire come from?
(the other half being Nazi Germany, predictably).
But I agree that isn't compulsory and would be worth learning about.
It's much more important to get an overall grasp of how the events fit together before you begin trying to analyse anything. Students just don't get given as much context as they should.
it seems to be a well known fact.
in all seriousness, i did a history degree, specialised in british history, got a good degree, good mark from a good uni etc and i still have massive gaps in my subject knowledge. there is, obviously, a ridiculous amount to know. the reason dads always know loads about history isn't that they're old, it's that they've had a longer lifetime to absorb all the knowledge and you need it
because I find it very boring. I'm much more interested in Ancient Egypt, Ancient Rome, Ancient Greece... All the Ancient shit. It just seems more fascinating because it's not the history of my home country. Nahmean?
I know sod all about him though. GCSE history for me as the social and economic history of Britain (before 1900). Canals, bridges, wide-gauge railways..the three-field crop rotation. I could tell you a bunch of stuff about Jethro Tull and the seed drill..but I couldn't pick Oliver Cromwell out of a police lineup. If it doesn't involve Sharpe or that rapscallion from 'Master & Commander' I'm pretty buggered...for anything after 1900 read 'chronicle of the 20th century'..I swear by it..
I'm pretty confident on the basics before that, but I couldn't really go much further than tell you what happened when ( for instance, I couldn't tell you why it happened).
& all about crop rotation and putting the fields to fallow.
You know; all the useful stuff? If I was a 14th century farmer.
But really, nothing. I wish I knew more but at school history seemed like a bit of redundant option to me. It's good though, cos that means at least now if you learn something it's cos you actually want to & you find it of interest. And you can learn as little as you like as long as you are happy with that.