to all those who went to British schools
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Cromwell
Ricky-V-Valentine — 17 years ago(January 18, 2009 03:13 AM)
I am British and in secondary school I learnt much about the history of the United Kingdom. However I was never taught anything about Cromwell. Is there a desire for the national curriculum to hide the atrocities he committed? The curriculum still taught me the oppression under Soviet and Nazi governments, and even the oppression as experienced in the slave trade by Britain and other European powers.
-
philbrowna — 16 years ago(October 06, 2009 05:21 AM)
No desire to hide anything, simply a realisation that all the things he supposedly did in battle were no different to the tactics and methods used by everyone at the time.
So why single him out for criticisim while ignoring far worse done by many other people? -
Petronius Arbiter II — 16 years ago(February 09, 2010 01:19 PM)
Cromwell is still a sensitive topic among the British upper classes. They're willing to allow textbooks and BBC shows to reveal the sins of past monarchs, but the Commonwealth Period was something else. It was an attack on the principle of monarchy itself.
By way of analogy: when I was growing up, my (American) grade school textbooks never referred to "the (American) Civil War," only to "the War Between the States." That's because the publishers want to sell books to schools in the Deep South as well as states that, like mine, fought for the Union. It will likely be a distinctly cool day in Heck before elementary and secondary school textbooks throughout America portray (borderline psychotic) Jefferson Davis, or the James gang, or the Confederate cause in general, as they really were. The whole revisionist view of "the lost cause" and the idea that, well, maybe the wrong side won the US Civil War, continues to exert a strong hold on many American minds. That's partly a product of what's taught in the schools, and partly a
cause
of what's taught in the schools.
Meanwhile, let's face it: over on your side of the pond, you may have a rather liberal constitutional monarchy, but it's still a monarchy. So long as it remains one, the politicians are likely to be unwilling to let the schools entertain the notion that maybe Cromwell wasn't such a bad guy after all, but just a product of his times, at worst. -
TudorLady — 16 years ago(February 10, 2010 12:52 AM)
Don't know about that, there's a great big statue of him outside the Houses of Parliament! I think the schools present the facts about the Civil War and the causes thereof the same as any other period of our turbulent history. Yes we have a monarchy but it doesn't dictate what is taught in school. The Protectorate happened and thanks to Cromwell we have a much better system of government than we had before it.
Waiting for my Mr Colin Firth Darcy -
Petronius Arbiter II — 16 years ago(February 10, 2010 08:41 AM)
I'm guessing Ricky-v-valentine went to a different kind of school than you did.
Please don't expect us Yanks to understand the British educational system. What we call private schools, you call public schools. I have no idea what you call the same thing as we call public schools.
It's like the old saying goes: we're two peoples separated by a common language. -
TudorLady — 16 years ago(February 10, 2010 10:24 AM)
Well if your public schools are the posh ones that the rich send their kids to, we call them private schools (well, some of us call them an abomination!) confusing innit?
Waiting for my Mr Colin Firth Darcy -
Petronius Arbiter II — 16 years ago(February 11, 2010 11:29 AM)
giggles and snickers
Well, when I compare what you just wrote with this Wikipedia page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_school_(privately_funded)
Then I'm even more confused.
In the USA, "public school" generally means government owned and operated, almost always by state governments, but some schools, e.g. overseas military schools, owned by the federal government, for children of US service members also qualify, as do some schools that technically are operated by local governments, but owned by the state; my local community college, for example. At the college and university level, these usually do charge tuition and fees for students who don't have a scholarship, but below that, they charge no tuition, and few if any fees.
A private school here is privately owned and operated, and isn't necessarily "rich;" most Catholic parochial schools, for example, barely have two pennies to rub together.
The only ambiguity I can think of are "charter schools," privately owned and operated but funded by state and/or local governments under terms of a limited and revokable contract, or charter.
In any case judging by the Wikipedia page, Eton is called a "public school" on your side of the pond. Here it would be considered anything but.
We will now return you to your regularly scheduled confusion. -
TudorLady — 16 years ago(February 12, 2010 03:12 AM)
Ok, how about,
State schools - Kids attend the government funded school nearest to where they live. Parents can apply for them to go to one they prefer (for whatever reason) outwith the catchment area, and if there are places available its 'first come, first served'
Catholic schools are run by the Church and funded by the Local Education Authority. (Many non-Cathoilc parents choose to send their children to these schools as they tend to have good records on discipline and exam results.)
Private/Independent schools - Parents pay fees to send their children to these schools. Many senior private schools and a few junior schools offer scholarships to attract bright or talented pupils to the school. They are usually awarded after a competitive examination, for academic, musical or artistic merit. Scholarships vary in value but rarely cover the whole fees. Scholarships normally cover a maximum of 50% of the fees.
Eton, near Windsor in England, north of Windsor Castle, is one of the original nine English public schools as defined by the Public Schools Act 1868. Enacted by the British Parliament to reform and regulate nine leading English boys' schools. These so-called public schools all grew out of ancient charity schools originally established to provide for a few poor scholars, but then, as today, educated many sons of the English upper and upper-middle classes on a fee-paying basis.
I believe it is wrong that children of well-off parents receive a better education simply because those parents can afford to pay for it. I'm not saying that all state schools are bad, far from it, but it cannot be denied that children from poorer backgrounds are at a distinct disadvantage through no fault of their own.
I trust I make myself obscure?
Waiting for my Mr Colin Firth Darcy -
Petronius Arbiter II — 16 years ago(February 12, 2010 11:53 AM)
No more obscure than my feeble attempt, on the other thread, to explain the difference between the English Puritans and the common American understanding of the meaning of the word "Puritan."
In fact, I think I may have made a mess of it. For example, some sources seem to be of the opinion that Cromwell strongly favored Congregationalism though as Lord Protector he didn't exactly govern that way which apparently just goes to show there's not a lot of universal agreement over who was a Puritan and who wasn't. -
freefall79 — 15 years ago(May 26, 2010 09:44 AM)
in my school, which is a working class english comprehensive we learned about cromwell but to the point that he was a good general and a total bastard! who banned christmas, music and theater and hated the irish with a passion.
Thunderbirds Aren't Slow -
vonmazur — 15 years ago(August 10, 2010 11:16 PM)
I went to Catholic Schools for 7 years, run by Nuns from the "old Sod"Even though the Irish did not like Cromwell, we learned about this warLater in High School in Connecticut, we got the full treatment, including the the Regicide Judges, and hiding in the cave in West Rock in New havenThree big Streets are named after them in NH, Goffe, Whaley and DixwellEach one is buried on the Green in NH, under each church, down in the ancient crypts. They are buried upright, facing Great Britainsupposedly!! The "Public" Schools in CT were far better than California, and at least as good as the Parochial Schools I attended. CA Public Schools were 3 years behind the Parochial when I attended them at Travis AFB and VacavilleI had to work hard in CT, the last two years of High School to keep up, after moving to CT from CA.
Dale
"If those sweethearts won't face German bulletsThey'll face french ones!" -
Dog112 — 15 years ago(November 19, 2010 09:10 PM)
my (American) grade school textbooks never referred to "the (American) Civil War," only to "the War Between the States." That's because the publishers want to sell books to schools in the Deep South
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/civil+war
:
civil war
noun
a war between political factions or regions within the same country.
http://tripatlas.com/Civil_war
:
A 'civil war' is a war in which parties within the same culture, society or nationality fight against each other for the control of political power.
A civil war is a war in which the combatants fight for control of the government. In the American "Civil War," there was no such fight. The war was fought because Lincoln was determined to preserve the Union through the use of offensive military action. He believed that state governments did not have the right to leave a federation they could not support and which did not support them.
The southern states did not want control of the government. They wanted to be free of it. Hence the name, "The War Between the States."
(Some 600,000 men died in this war, roughly 50% more than the number of Americans killed in WWII.)
Similarly, the American Revolutionary War is sometimes referred to in Britain as the "War for American Independence."
The War Between the States could be called the "War for the Independence of the Confederate States." It might well have, if the south had won.
. -
Petronius Arbiter II — 15 years ago(February 08, 2011 02:12 PM)
Ah, the old "dictionary defense!"
Doesn't wash with me. I don't accept these dictionaries' definitions as being the only possible definitions of "civil war." I don't believe in prescriptive linguistics, and this situation is one good example of the many reasons I don't.
"I don't deduce, I observe." -
Errington_92 — 10 years ago(January 15, 2016 07:27 AM)
Cromwell is still a sensitive topic among the British upper classes.
They're willing to allow textbooks and BBC shows to reveal the sins of past monarchs,
but the Commonwealth Period was something else. It was an attack on the principle of monarchy itself.
I agree completely. Unless you undertake history at University level, Cromwell and the Civil War/Commonwealth period is not discussed. The British Monarchy for most people has been deemed as a important national institution for so long, despite its injustices, that even today the suggestion of a Republic is seen as treacherous.
I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not. -
garywolfboy — 15 years ago(December 29, 2010 06:46 AM)
There are too many Roman Catholics in high places now. Their sole remit seems to be Catholicism by stealth. It is particularly bad in Scotland at present. Air brushing protestantism wherever and however they can. Yet they continue to play the "oppressed chip on their shoulder" victims. However, try bringing up state funded sectarian, state funded schooling with them ( catholic schools)and watch them squirm.
The UK is a protestant nation.