What is british history education like?

Point of contention towards using that term?

What else would you call it? "The region's history" implies that there isn't full ownership of the direction of the events that have impacted the evolution of the people and their organisation as it exists today. Anything less than "nation" is dishonest.

kinda explains the shitposting

>What is british history education like?
In primary schools (first level of education) we tend do very general things like the Romans, Tudors, ancient Egypt etc. All in very little detail. We just learnt the basic facts.

In secondary school. We tended to focus on reasoning and why events occured and discussing them in detail. We learnt about the normans and the Atlantic slave trade.

I took a more advanced gcse class which focused on the Russian revolution as well.

In Primary school I learnt about the Tudors, only small details about it.

In Secondary school I learnt about the Norman conquest of England in my first year and some more Tudors, then about British colonization in India, then we did WW1, which I only remember us learning about how retarded people like Douglas Haig were and how views on WW1 have changed over time. So overall, I learnt very little in school about history, we didn't touch on WW2 at all.

Is some countries not have nationalist bias when learning of their country history?

In USA there's an obvious bias. It disappears slightly when it comes to atomic bombs, but not very much.

Western Euros don't want to be alive. Zardoz is real.

in belgium we have an pretty critical point of view on historyin educationand thestudy of sources is quite important. probably because there is not really much nationalistic bias to be had.

makes sense in a country that is just an accident of history

seems like a pretty positive side effect

There is nothing at all the matter with a healthy respect for your own nation's historical development.

Here in the Philippines, Flip history is done in Elementary/Freshman high. Sophomore year is Asian history, and Junior year is World History.

makes sense for a non country

no need to be so uncharitable

Depends what level you're talking about. Primary and secondary school is fairly shit and the curriculum changes almost every year.

seems like a pretty good approach

If only the British government published it's school history curriculum somewhere online...

>state mandated curriculum

how authoritative

>expecting people to read through months of textbooks

my secondary school taught WW1, the history of medicine, the Elizabethan era and Germany 1890-1945 to a fairly decent quality

>state authority

In primary school we learned about Tudors, Romans, Egypt and other bits of history thrown in as cute facts. Very little depth, mostly about what they looked like and how society was.
Secondary school started with more depth about Ronan society and how it was founded. Then we spent about 1/3 a year learning about the slave trade (mainly statistics, dates and the triangle). We then did the English civil war, learning quite a bit about Cromwell and how he ruled. Then back to more tudors, just more depth. Following this we cover WW1 in minimal detail, learning mainly about how it started and the battle of the somme. We then go into WW2 covering Chamberlain's appeasement and how the war started + how it ended.
When we start GCSE we learn about the roaring twenties in the USA, society, production, banking. Then we do about the depression and new deal. We study the causes and effects. Then we learn about the start of the cold war (Yalta, Potsdam, Berlin blockade) and we learn about the Cuban missile crisis. We then study vietnam war (basically the stats, cause, end). Finally getting back to British history we study liberal reforms in early 20th century and the Women's suffrage movement.
I didn't do A-Level history but they cover: US civil war, Tudors, medicine through history

There's absolutely nothing about the Empire. Because of this, most of Britain's attitude about imperialism is inherited from the imperial era.

You learn more about the Empire from a 30 minute walk around Tower Hamlets than any amount of formal education could teach you.

Very basic. Mostly covers the Tudors, WW1 & WW2 (in very little detail other than a couple attires, a few episodes of Blackadders and "H-holocaust everyone pretend to feel guilty for a lesson") then there's a ton of stuff on Suffragettes. Primary school is more fun, we got to learn about Egyptians by making sarcophogi out of toilet paper did that Walk Like and Egyptian thing by the B-Gee's. It seems to depend a lot on your teacher's whether they are socialist or not, I've never seen a remotely right-wing history teacher in my life though the socialist one's can either be really fun or fuck-off annoying.

Here's my input.

I learnt about The Rise Of Hitler (included world war 1)

Then we had to study medicine through the ages. From Hippocrates to modern day.

After I believe we studied the Elizabethan era

And I believe finally after that we studied the American West.

>Walk Like and Egyptian thing by the B-Gee's.

>What is british history education like?
we have a pretty good history curriculum, its been a while but i don't remember any nationalistic circle jerks

>months of textbooks
>A website that lists the curriculum topics with examples of what should be taught

gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-history-programmes-of-study/national-curriculum-in-england-history-programmes-of-study

At gcse we learn about Russia, the cold war, Weimar republic and the rise of Hitler for modern history. And then we learn about William the conquerer as well as emigration and empire which is around a 1000 years British History from Alfred the Great

>It disappears slightly when it comes to atomic bombs, but not very much.

wtf user? I think you mean not at all. 'We HAD to bomb Japan TWICE' is normal rhetoric for seppo cuhnts. No objectivity on anything just USA!! USA!! USA!!

Learn what, exactly? That a lot of brown people were conquered?

Eat shit Bruce. I bet your grandpa was glad we bombed those Jap fucks.

Under British rule as part of the Empire living standards were high enough that they were happy to live in their native countries.
Under self rule living standards dropped to the point that they would rather move to the allegedly hated former colonial oppressor than stay in their native countries.

Mainly social history as opposed to political history. Very dry. Lots about welfare, and that kind of thing.

I'd wager that 75% of the British public don't know Britain ever had an empire.

I'm doing A2 history now. We study about how Britain became a welfare state, how its industry was overtaken by US and Germany (staple industry) between 1906-1956.

We also learn about the Crusades from 1095 to 1296. Why the crusades became a thing. Urban's preaching, Alexios asked the pope for help, Gregorian reforms, how crusader states were formed, how the crusades actually happened, Manuel's flop at Myriokephalon, frankish leaders, fall of Edessa, Zenghi, Nureddin, Saladin, why the second crusade flopped, the divide in crusader states by 1180's,fall of Jerusalem, lion heart, why knights went on the crusade, the rise of jihad etc. Good stuff and not very biased at all

It felt like we spent most of school learning about WW2 and Tudors.

was quite an eye opener to learn about the British Empire in university.

Please tell me you're being facetious. That's like no one telling you about your father as you grow up.

He did. You're the problem.

They were Norse. Anything else is just ebin bantz and the regular french cuckold-wewuzzing

>cuckold-wewuzzing
oh the irony.