- This topic has 4 voices and 2 replies.
-
Posts
-
Why is it that much of 19th century history as taught in America virtually ignores Europe and the rest of the world? We only learn learn about the really huge events over here. I bet that most casual history buffs have not heard of the Revolutions of 1848 or if they have know very little about them, despite the fact that they had a huge impact on subsequent European and world history. Everyone has heard of the Napoleonic Wars and the Potato Famine, but what about the Austro-Prussian War or the Crimean War. I would guess that many people would be challenged to place the location of the famous Charge of the Light Brigade. I guess I am just whining because in America it seems that we only teach the history of America and tend to ignore world events unless they were so big they cannot be ignored. I would love to hear everyone else's opinion on this.
I can't say for sure but I can offer some potential explanations. First, 19th century grew in complexity – so many things started going on as Europe and America entered what is called “modernism”. I have read commentary on this period that suggests it was a time when all these things converged at the same time – technological advances, social and religious change, vast economic growth, transportation, etc. The number of players grow during this time, including those who reacted against certain change (such as Nietzsche and Marx). After a point it becomes so complex that it's not possible to do justice to all the historical events that go on during this period in Europe.Second, America came into her own in the 19th century. These are the really formative years now that the nation is in place and so attention for her history now competes with attention for European history. I can imagine that when taught in America, this means that education about European history will suffer. Also, remember that whereas it's easier to study trends in America because it is still young at this point, some problems affecting Europe have been going on for centuries. So in a sense it's just easier to study 19th century American history because it's "simpler" or "cleaner", if you will.I'm sure there are other reasons as well but IMO these two are big ones.
I'm probably not the best person to speak for this, but I haven't experienced that yet. In the 2 Western Civ courses I've taken so far, the emphasis has been on Europe. I was actually more surprised by how little the U.S. was mentioned.
Everyone has heard of the Napoleonic Wars and the Potato Famine, but what about the Austro-Prussian War or the Crimean War.
I agree with this. Everyone's historical knowledge is mostly about the big stuff or famous people. IMO, it was the little things like the treaties and agreements and the Constitutions and Constitutional revisions of different countries and all those little wars that we can learn a lot from and compare with our own time.
