Does your country teach you about the American Civil War

Does your country teach you about the American Civil War

yes but not enough

Yes. It was the most violent and deadliest war in American history.

No. Why would they...

No, because you shits aren't as important as you think you are.

Yes, it is a subject in English language courses.
Our teacher showed us a letter of the US president back than, that stated that the war was not fought for slavery, but to keep the unity of the USA.

SOUTH WILL RISE AGAIN

>Yes
You really are their colony, aren't you?

Yes, we are.

Only that we saved your ungrateful ass

very briefly, basically only the fact

* But talking about the history of the important English speaking countries in an English course is not a sign of that.

A bit, as overall knowledge of the world at the time - the general why and where of the war.
We don't masturbate to every shitty battle and officer like over the seas though. Just a mention of Grant and Lee and nothing else when it comes to people and places.

Doesn't even teach about our own civil war so no.

...

Yes but more about its politics than the warfare itself

Cool. We learn about the Bolshevik revolution but nothing too in depth.

Nope. I don't think we were ever taught anything about the US besides slavery.

Yes but only basics, north wanted no slaves south did.
We have a lot of civil wars to learn about

btw that war has a direct relation to slavery

how would i know

If you had any in-depth discussion about slavery you learned about the secession war

>Doesn't even teach about our own civil war
Why wouldn't they teach about that?

Still the most important though

Well the northern abolitionist movement and a pro-abolition canidate is what compelled the South to break off. Before that there had been things like bloody Kansas and the Raid on Harper's Ferry which were violent conflicts between abolitionists and supporters of slavery. Officially it wasn't about slavery but it basically was.

Shit. My apologies, I misread your post

I don't think so. It's a very local American thing. Maybe they have a few sentences about it in a world history textbook. Even at the Uni merican stuff didn't matter that much til about the end of the 19th century.

>he thinks the Civil War was primarily about slavery

of course not

No I don't even remember learning about our own 'history'

It was literally exactly about slavery you dixiecuck.

We were the most important ones for a while too. Think about that.

Yes and it's taught in a very, very left-inclined fashion. Or at least at my expensive private school, which, concerningly produces large numbers of the Australian financial elite. I think things should be taught without emotional or moral tones of any sort. We weren't taught about the Republican interest of industrialism whatsoever. Similarly, my entire cohort who studied modern history believe that the Vietnam war was wholesomely and uncompromisingly a mistake in all its' facets without any attention to the greater geopolitical impacts as well as the meddling from within.

Europeans don't learn about those things because comparing your battles to wars here Gettysburg was just a small skirmish.

Delet this

Yeah, Ozymandias is a bitch, isn't it?

You sound like you need a summed up non bias detail about the American civil war.

Reminder that the North tried to negotiate with the South peacefully but they nigged out and attacked one of our forts.

The state's rights the Southerners continually bring up was the right to own slaves because the majority of the country was against it and it was inevitable it would be banned.

Of course, we even have a holiday about it, to celebrate the death of many americans.

No. Nothing before 1914.

not really, it might be mentioned for like one lesson

question to germans: how is the holocaust / hitler taught in schools?

Exactly. Because it doesn't fit the agenda to educate finns about their past. It's better to forget the communist mistakes so the next generation gets to "try again".

>tfw want to learn about finnish civil war
>not a single book about it in English

They mentioned it since that was the time the French invaded us, and Juarez wasn't able to get your help because of it. They don't teach anything else.

capitalists vs racists
capitalists won

No. Why?

We dont even learn about our own 19th century civil wars (plural)...

No, nothing. We learn history of UK, Japan and Germany more. Maybe a bit on Colombus and the slavery of native though. That's it.

We had to make a class representation about the causes of the war. I consider American civil war as the first "modern" war and hence it's quite interesting.

Probably with the same level of impartiality and factual debate as it is here.

i thought france was greatest ally ;_;

Didn't get taught. But I get the general consensus was slavery and freedumbs

No
The ony reason I know about it's because of cartoons.

Finland secedes from Russia in 1917
Tensions as theres a huge wealth gap
Poor commie finns vs rich fennoswedes
(Reds vs whites)
Reds outnumber whites 10 to 1
Whites get help from imperial germany
Whites win
Whites start the "white terror" and executes 10s of thousands of reds
Rise of nationalism and (kind of) fascism although the govt was always democratic but the fascism movement was pretty big
Finland doesnt become commie
Finlands anti commie status results in nazi germany being our "allies" in ww2
Finland BTFOs invading commies with some help of nazi germany
Finland is 1st world today

Does your country teach you about the Russian Civil War?

>Finns vs Fennoswedes
>Not mentioning that the commies started the terror on a large scale and """""white terror""""" was a response to there not being time and recources to capture them all.

The Germans did literally fuck all when it comes to winning the war. The result was clear before, the maximum thing they did was make the result a bit faster. The reds were unorganized groups with little military experience and planning. The only way they managed a while was by TERRORIZING CIVILLIANS, which made whites extremely butthurt and resulted in ex reds not getting any important positions in the society afterwards.

There is no way the reds would have won without major help from Russia.

It was about the right of states to secede from the union.

No

>before 1861 there is nothing worth of studying except maybe France
>after 1861 glorious nation is born: all others are too jelly and start bashing us

That's it pretty much

Because of slavery. No Southerner took up arms to defend their right to secede. They took up arms to continue slavery. No Southern state decided to up and leave while abolishing slavery at the same time.

Glad to see the liberal brainwashing worked!

I don't remember but we have an awesome comic about it, les tuniques bleues (blue coats)

Also to add, groups like Suojeluskunta's were not fascist or even close. The only thing political about them was anti communism. They did not want power in the political system, just wanted to protect it and prevent the bolsevist revolution. Sure the thing was shut down by the soviets as a "fascist" group but only because it was considered an anti-Russian group which increased the size of our armed forces.

>no Irish need apply
>kill all indians
>dirty chinks work the railroads
>slavery is bad

Really makes you think

it was about the south being able to form a economic bloc so they can sell their cotton to the uk and they can only do that if they had their own sovereign government and they only had to do that because they could get better price so the union industrialists don't set up shop down south and ruin their monoply

at the very core it is to protect the cotton industry which was only so rampant because of slavery

Dont even know Who fought eachother or why.

But 80year war with spain was the shit!

We learn the start the end and the reason

""""""WAR OF NORTHERN AGGRESSION""""""

>muh war of northern aggression
southerners still so butthurt

Immediately after the war, Dodge proposed enslaving the Plains Indians and forcing them “to do the grading” on the railroad beds, “with the Army furnishing a guard to make the Indians work, and keep them from running away”. Union army veterans were to be the “overseers” of this new class of slaves. Dodge’s proposal was rejected; the U.S. government decided instead to try to kill as many Indians as possible.

In his memoirs, Sherman has high praise for Thomas Clark Durant, the vice president of the Union Pacific Railroad, as “a person of ardent nature, of great ability and energy, enthusiastic in his undertaking”. Durant was also the chief instigator of the infamous Credit Mobilier scandal, one of the most shocking examples of political corruption in U.S. history. Sherman himself had invested in railroads before the war, and he was a consummate political insider, along with Durant, Dodge, and his brother, Senator John Sherman.

President Grant made his old friend Sherman the army’s commanding general, and another Civil War luminary, General Phillip Sheridan, assumed command on the ground in the West. “Thus the great triumvirate of the Union Civil War effort,” writes Sherman biographer Michael Fellman, “formulated and enacted military Indian policy until reaching, by the 1880s, what Sherman sometimes referred to as ‘the final solution of the Indian problem’”.

What Sherman called the “final solution of the Indian problem” involved “killing hostile Indians and segregating their pauperized survivors in remote places.” “These men,” writes Fellman, “applied their shared ruthlessness, born of their Civil War experiences, against a people all three [men] despised. . . . Sherman’s overall policy was never accommodation and compromise, but vigorous war against the Indians,” whom he regarded as “a less-than-human and savage race”

>B-but they was oppressing the blacks

As a honorary Yankee (California) I have to side with the Confederacy in this war. Was slavery bad, yes. Was slavery worth hundreds of thousands of brothers killing each other? Fucking no.

And like someone pointed out about, the Northerners weren't angelic beings capable of doing no bad. There was no good side in that war, just winners and losers

Will it really tho

no

but user, from the vantage of the us nonetheless world history vietnam was a significant geopolitical blunder though. if you fault your institution and cohorts for studying vietnam AS the greater geopolitical impact and as the meddler within, then id say you're on the outside for good reason and you show yourself as a contrarian. it was one of the greatest follies and shows of hubris in all of human history, bested only by the fall of troy, the papacy during the renaissance or the british losing the american colonies, though history of course is littered with other stupefying examples of storied gov't failings
t. fag w/ masters in history

About America we learn that the continent was discovered by Columbus. That's about it.

This although I figured only recently what it was about (american civil war)

yes
i learned that north is people of liberty and justice while south is people of slavery, racism and all other evils

>IT WAS STARTED BY THE NORTH!
>THOSE CANNONBALLS FIRED AT FORT SUMTER WERE NON-BELLIGIRENTS VICTIMIZED BY THE NORTH
Southern butthurt always amazes me

btw where does this image come from, I hope its not reddit because its actually pretty funny.

>honorary Yankee (California)
no you are either from the North (for example I am from NY) or you aren't.

Yes
I learned that the south wanted to keep slavery and thats why north declared war

It was a very dark time in history which allowed for Communism to take over Russia and cause much sufferings

>Dutch education

*smacks thighs profusely*
WE DINDU NUFFIN
SOUF GON RISE 'GAIN!!!!!
*squeals like a pig*

No.
No one cares apart from you

I got it in school yeah.

Only that you guys didn't help us against the French until after the Civil War ended.

Yes but I want the details. I want to know names and places and events. And Wikipedia isn't enough.

>i-it was northern aggression
The South needs a second burning.

No, they taught us about our own civil war.

>We and napoleon could have attacked them while they were fighting
>Hurr durr no muh mexican empire
Fucking frogs suck at warfare so much

this civil war?

Briefly, yes.

Did you learn about ours?

No. We literally learn nothing about Canada.

This
Why would they teach more?

Tony should have killed Bucky

No, but it should have been taught due to how it was basically the proto-first world war.

Yes, briefly
>North was anti-slavery, South was pro-slavery due to their type of economy
>South declares independence and attacks a North fort
>War happens
>North wins because of industries and more soldiers
That's it

>world war
No, that's the War of 1812/Fr-Indian War.

He means the type of warfare

Which one? :^)

>fucking niggers they ruined Detroit
>fucking South needs to be burned again
Yanks are the ultimate cuckolds.