Britons 'ignorant of UK history'

[Arminius]

Britons 'ignorant of UK history'

British youth are ignorant of their own history with fewer than half questioned knowing Sir Francis Drake defeated the Spanish Armada, according to a poll.

Some 13% of 16 to 24-year-olds credited CS Forester's fictional Horatio Hornblower, while 6% thought it was Tolkien's wizard Gandalf.

Even the over-65s fared little better on some questions, with 22% forgetting the Romans had conquered Britain.

The 1,000-person poll marks the start of BBC2's Battlefield Britain series.

A third of 16 to 34-year-olds did not know that William the Conqueror won the Battle of Hastings, while more than a fifth of 16 to 24-year-olds thought Britain had been conquered by the Germans, the Americans or the Spanish.

On average, only half of all age groups knew it was the Battle of the Boyne, in which Catholic King James II's troops were defeated by Protestant William III in 1690, that is celebrated by the Orangemen on 12 July in Northern Ireland.

While 71% of over-65s got that question right, only 18% of 16 to 24-year-olds did.

And despite hefty media coverage of the 60th anniversary of the D-Day landings - a decisive World War II battle - almost a third of all age groups were unable to say the Battle of Britain happened during that war.

'Shocking'

Nick Seaton, chairman of the Campaign for Real Education, said the poll "clearly shows that our state education system has got a lot to answer for".

He added: "This is extremely shocking."

Battlefield Britain presenter Peter Snow called the findings "a shock and a challenge".

He said: "Battlefield Britain can put this right by giving viewers some of the most striking and vivid images yet seen of the violent events that shaped our history."

Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3537162.stm)

[synthesis]

I'd like to see some statistics for other nations. I wouldn't be surprised if these kinds of statistics were common.

There was a Fox News poll done a little over a year ago wherein 17% of the respondants had never heard of Tony Blair, 46% had never heard of Jacques Chirac, and 58% had never heard of Gerhard Schroeder. This was considered tertiary to the 'revelation' that "70% of Americans support a war in Iraq."

[revolutionindia]

The faster the british forget their shameful imperial history the better its for the world ,lest they have any grand ideas about re establishing their great empire again on the blood and sweat of african and asian people.

I seriously believe many imperliast nations have not been brought to
justice for the crimes they committed in the recent past.

[Y2A]

The majority of any people regardless of nationality are stupid.

[Hoppe]

Witness they failure of a publicly funded education system.....

Luckily they can all read and write :rolleyes:

[synthesis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 08:07 AM
Witness they failure of a publicly funded education system.....

Luckily they can all read and write :rolleyes:
That's a laughable assertion. Privately funded education would make for far worse statistics - when people are too poor to afford education, illiteracy wouldn't lend to a very comprehensive body of knowledge regarding history ;)

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 05:31 PM
That's a laughable assertion. Privately funded education would make for far worse statistics - when people are too poor to afford education, illiteracy wouldn't lend to a very comprehensive body of knowledge regarding history ;)
Not really. Private education has had a pretty good trackrecord in the UK (this means before there were such things as publicly funded schools).

I know private education is not your piece of cake, because God forbid, those crazy Christians might have the idea to open up a school and teach poor neighborhood children.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 10:44 AM
The faster the british forget their shameful imperial history the better its for the world ,lest they have any grand ideas about re establishing their great empire again on the blood and sweat of african and asian people.

I seriously believe many imperliast nations have not been brought to
justice for the crimes they committed in the recent past.
Anyone who suggests that we should forget imperial history should be publically flogged. It serves as a fine lesson for how we as people should NOT behave. The same goes for Nazism, it must NEVER be forgotten. Indeed its history and crimes should be taught to children as standard, just so that we do not forget!

[DRS]

I'm 16 and have just left secondary school, and yes i can say, it was shit! very very shit.

i know a bit about world wide knowlege but that would only be from watching stuff on TV and even playing video games!
they waste their money, on what, i dont know, but all i know is that the computers where definetly up to standard, the enviroment was dirty, the teachers were just crap, and we even had a paedophile at our school! a IT teacher who always looks like he is drunk, and if he saw a boy getting his head kicked in by 20 other kids he would simply say, " let em sort it out themselves " and my former form tutor, who was like a nazi dictator, grabbing onto any false sense of power she thought she had EG, i just walk in the class and she damands that a take off my coat and sit down, and making smarmy remarks, she had no power.

i can truthly say, i dont think i have learnt anything at all, the only hope of career i have is in computing, and the only reason that is, is because i learnt about the computer on my own at home rather then in school.

all my friends are going into dead end jobs with no future, most of them being builders, or not even knowing what they want to do because they didnt get the education the people are paying for out of their own money.

i did try at school, but in the end, you cant try to learn something when the resources are non excistant

My final bit " We are all proud to be british, even though we dont know what being british consits of "

[synthesis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 11:53 AM
Not really. Private education has had a pretty good trackrecord in the UK (this means before there were such things as publicly funded schools).


Explain this further. A "good" track record as compared to the subject at hand? How can privately funded schools do a better job at educating all people to a level that isn't an embarassment to the rest of the world than schools funded by public taxes?

[DRS]

i wonder where all the taxes go, the streets are still no safe, kids are not getting any qualifications.

yet i see the royal familly buying huge boats at the expense of the everyday tax payer.

look at it this way, the rich, put their children through the best education, and they grow up to be diplomats or whatever, yet, the everyday working class person, stays in the crap jobs, and then does their children and so on, all because our education system neglects the everday english person, keeping the rich, rich, and the poor, poor.

[Saint-Just]

DRS, you speak the truth. Our country is full of people who only seek to struggle against each other and use and exploit other people. Individuals look down upon those who are poorer than they or do not speak English as well as they do and as such many people live a bad life, oppressed and disaffected. Those who succeed are criminals or rich business people. Everyone attempts to shift the blame of the failings of our society on others and particularly on to the shoulders of the poorest people in our society.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 06:53 PM
Not really. Private education has had a pretty good trackrecord in the UK (this means before there were such things as publicly funded schools).

I know private education is not your piece of cake, because God forbid, those crazy Christians might have the idea to open up a school and teach poor neighborhood children.
The british govenment comissioned someone to asses the education system before there was public education.

When he asked some kids in a christain school who Jesus Christ was none of them could answer, then one replied "he's the king of London." This scenario was far from exceptional, i'll see if I can find the source I read and post some quotes.

Edit: these were teenagers.

[Hot Dog Day #84]

Good. History unlike what many education institutions try to tell people, is not absolute and always right. This is a view that Marx too held, see my sig. We simplify and alter history so much when recalling it, it is in no way what most people think of as 'history', ie a set of events we completely understand and unquestionable.

In my opinion many histories exist, none of them fully explainable or neccessarily inevitable. I mean we cannot even fully explain and identify things occuring in the present, why should the past be any different.

And of course all this is relevant as a criticism of Marxism, which assumes only one narrative exists(class division determining everything), and that history has somehow purposely moved towards society achieving communism.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by Children's Employment Commission's Report 1842
In Birmingham, says Commissioner Grainger, the children examined by me are, as a whole, utterly wanting in all that could be in the remotest degree called a useful education. Although in almost all the schools religious instruction alone is furnished, the profoundest ignorance even upon that subject prevailed.-- In Wolverhampton, says Commissioner Horne, I found, among others, the following example: A girl of eleven years who had attended both day and Sunday school "had never learnt of another world, nor of heaven, nor of another life". A boy, seventeen years old, "did not know how many two and two made, nor how many farthings there were in twopence, even when the money was placed in his hand". Several boys had never heard of London nor of Willenhall, though the latter was but an hour's walk from their homes, and in the closest relations with Wolverhampton. Several had never heard the name of the Queen nor other names, such as Nelson, Wellington, Bonaparte; but it was noteworthy that those who had never heard even of St. Paul, Moses, or Solomon, were very well instructed as to the life, deeds, and character of Dick Turpin, and especially of Jack Sheppard. A youth of sixteen did not know "how many twice two make", nor "how much money four farthings make". A youth of seventeen asserted that "ten farthings make ten halfpence"; a third, seventeen years old, answered several very simple questions with the brief statement, that "he was ne jedge o' nothin'." These children, who are crammed with religious doctrines for four or five years at a stretch, know as little at the end as at the beginning. One child had "attended a Sunday school regularly for five years; does not know who Jesus Christ was, but has heard the name. Never heard of the twelve apostles. Never heard of Samson, nor of Moses, nor Aaron, etc." Another "attended a Sunday school regularly six years. Knows who Jesus Christ was, he died on the cross to shed his blood, to save our Saviour. Never heard of St. Peter or St. Paul." A third, "attended the Sunday schools of different kinds about seven years; can read, only in the thin books, easy words of one syllable; has heard of the apostles, does not know if St. Peter was one, nor if St. John was one, unless it was St. John Wesley." To the question who Christ was, Horne received, among others, the following answers, "Yes, Adam," "He was an apostle," "He was the Saviour's Lord's Son," and from a youth of sixteen: "Jesus Christ was a king of London a long time ago." In Sheffield, Commissioner Symons let the children from the Sunday school read aloud; they could not tell what they had read, or what sort of people the apostles were, of whom they had just been reading. After he had asked them all one after the other about the apostles without securing a single correct answer, one sly-looking little fellow, with great glee, called out: "Please sir, they were the lepers!" From the pottery districts and from Lancashire the reports are similar.

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 12:10 AM
Explain this further. A "good" track record as compared to the subject at hand? How can privately funded schools do a better job at educating all people to a level that isn't an embarassment to the rest of the world than schools funded by public taxes?
Seems like the burden of proof is on you since public education has an appaling trackrecord.

In 1861 1 out of every 8 citizens of the population attended day school and publicly funded eduction only came about in 1870 with the Education Act. Now it is somewhere around 1 out of seven persons (after more than 100 years).

It is not realistic to assume that all citizens can be educated (handicapped people etc), but if you would take 90% as a good indicator private education in the UK managed to do this around 1860.


The british govenment comissioned someone to asses the education system before there was public education

I thought governments were a tool of the ruling class. Why believe them? Many government reports were heavily critized for instance because they constantly underreported attendance levels.


When he asked some kids in a christain school who Jesus Christ was none of them could answer, then one replied "he's the king of London." This scenario was far from exceptional, i'll see if I can find the source I read and post some quotes.

This proofs nothing. I can quote George W Bush but this doesn't mean Yale is a crap university.

[Capitalist Imperial]

...more than a fifth of 16 to 24-year-olds thought Britain had been conquered by the Germans, the Americans or the Spanish.

Well, they were right about the Americans! ;)

[synthesis]

Seems like the burden of proof is on you

How so? You made the claim.


since public education has an appaling trackrecord.

In countries with better public education, more people are educated to a higher degree than the countries that fund their schools less.

This is apparent when one compares any Scandinavian country to an American district, or even American districts to one another.

http://www.nea.org/edstats/images/expenditures.pdf


if you would take 90% as a good indicator private education in the UK managed to do this around 1860.

Let's see some context for this. What exactly did it mean to be an "educated citizen" in 19th century Britain?

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 03:44 PM
In 1861 1 out of every 8 citizens of the population attended day school

It is not realistic to assume that all citizens can be educated (handicapped people etc), but if you would take 90% as a good indicator private education in the UK managed to do this around 1860.
So it dropped from 90% to around 13% in space of a year?

[Hoppe]

In countries with better public education, more people are educated to a higher degree than the countries that fund their schools less.

This is apparent when one compares any Scandinavian country to an American district, or even American districts to one another.


Again, this doesn't proof that private schools cannot achieve the same results, or better.


Let's see some context for this. What exactly did it mean to be an "educated citizen" in 19th century Britain?

Well you can hardly compare 19th century schools with present ones. However, data clearly shows that the industrial revolution caused a rise in demand for education. Private institutions provided this and this such a good thing that 90% was literate.

That perhaps the level was lower at that time doesn't prove a thing. Medicine or phyics wasn't quite as sophisticated as it is now.

So, your claim that private institutions cannot provide education for all people, even the poor, is based on nothing.

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 06:44 PM
So it dropped from 90% to around 13% in space of a year?
Another victim of bad schools?

[cubist]

SO, british history is nothing to be proud of, except where cromwell nearly abolished the monarchy.

i had a suffiecient state school education,

people need to stop blaming schooling and start looking at where it went wrong, the loss of family values and lack of family interest in there childrens lives is affecting schooling, kids turn upat the age of five struggling to verbally construct sentences let alone spell. if families aint gonna teach the kids right/wrong reading and writing, then school should start earlier.

i garauntee we could improve state funded education if all kids had the same start, but they don't, my mums a teacher and at least 70% of five year olds can't spell there name in her school when they start. of course that isn't taken into consideration in the stupid statistics recorded by the government

I went to that school and in the SATS at the age of 11, about two people failed to get at least level 4 in my class, and about 5 in the other 9 years later the teachers haven't changed and now your lucky if 2 people get straight 4 in the year some don't manage level 3. and thats the schools fault? is it fuck until we get family values or something to replace them, we will continue to fail at improving education

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 08:34 PM
Another victim of bad schools?
I was quoting your statistics where you claimed that in 1860 90% of the population were in education but in 1861 only 1 in 8 were.

[Capitalist Imperial]

I agree, the schools aren't the problem as much as the discipline levels of parennts.

In simple terms, somewhere we went from a swat on the ass or a backhand to "time outs".

And moms started working more than ever, and dads started working more hours, and the kids got less and less attention.

All downhill from there.

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 10:15 AM
I was quoting your statistics where you claimed that in 1860 90% of the population were in education but in 1861 only 1 in 8 were.
No, I said educated and 1 out of 8 attended school (at that moment9. I would hardly be a surprise that 30 year olds are not in school.

[DaCuBaN]

somewhere we went from a swat on the ass or a backhand to "time outs".

This is the central tenet as far as I'm concerned: Starting to school kids earlier isn't going to do jack all as long as we have a liberal society like this. The idea that we musn't ever smack a child is patently absurd.

Technically, school isn't about teaching history at any rate - although I believe it should be working harder on this front - It's primary function is to teach the populous the three R's (Reading, wRiting, aRithmetic) and no more.

[PRC-UTE]

Britons ignorant of history?

A shock, that!

Though I think the USA is probably worse.


QUOTE
somewhere we went from a swat on the ass or a backhand to "time outs".



This is the central tenet as far as I'm concerned: Starting to school kids earlier isn't going to do jack all as long as we have a liberal society like this. The idea that we musn't ever smack a child is patently absurd.

Technically, school isn't about teaching history at any rate - although I believe it should be working harder on this front - It's primary function is to teach the populous the three R's (Reading, wRiting, aRithmetic) and no more.

I don't see how corporal punishment will help, but admittedly it's better than no parentlal involvement at all.

I went to a Jesuit school and you knew your performance mattered. That's all they really have over public schools, which are so uninvolved as to be little more than glorified baby-sitting.

We definitely need more parents involved with their kids education, it's too bad the capitalists won't let them.