[Raellus]

Once again, it's not really fair to generalize about Americans' accurate knowledge and understanding (or lack thereof) of their own history from such a small sample size and anecdotal evidence, especially because the latter is inherently subjective. I'm sure that if I surveyed a couple dozen Australians about their own history, or asked my American friend who lives there what Australians do and don't know, I could uncover plenty of errors and misconceptions too.

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

Do the Americans really not understand that it was not "Americans" fighting the British but that it was British colonists fighting against British authority?

By 1776, it can be argued that "Americans" were a thing. Yes, the colonies were legally subject to the crown of England, but they had no direct representation in Parliament (a major complaint in the Declaration of Independence), no landed aristocracy, and were linguistically and more ethnically diverse than their cousins back in England. A vast majority of "Americans" had been born in the colonies and very few of them had ever set foot on English (the Isles) soil. Although most were considered British citizens at the time due to fairly liberal immigration law, "Americans" included significant numbers of Irish, Germans, and Dutch, quite a few of whom didn't even speak the King's English yet. There was no state church in the colonies and one could find significant numbers of Puritans, Calvinists, and Quakers here. In addition, per capita land ownership was much more widespread in the colonies, meaning that more people could participate in local government here than back "home" in England. These are significant differences and contributed to an increasingly distinct self-identity.

Although many colonists still considered themselves English subjects in 1776- at least legally speaking- most of them also knew by then that they were very different, socially, economically, and culturally, than their island brethren.

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

Do they not understand that the militias were probably taught how to fight by the British Army so that they could defend against the indigenous peoples and also potential invasions from Britain's European rivals?

Not so. British officers posted to the colonies during the French & Indian War (Seven Years War) frequently commented on how unlike their own troops colonial militias were, and vice-versa. Fighting in the wilderness of North America was very different than close order drill on the open plains of western Europe- wilderness fighting was not taught to the colonial militias by British regulars; it was gleaned from generations of conflict with Native Americans (Amerindians, if you will). During the half-dozen or so wars of empire during the 17th and 18th centuries (but especially during the French & Indian War), colonial fighters were appalled at the harsh discipline meted out by British officers, and by rank based on station of birth. They were quite used to electing their own officers or simply going home if they didn't like the way a campaign was being run. By the same token, many British officers viewed the colonial militiamen as being undisciplined ruffians, good for little else besides manual labor.

If you're referring to the Continental Army of the American Revolution, then yes, many colonial officers were blooded while serving alongside the British, but most did so as part of the militia. However, only a very few ever served in the British regulars. In addition, much of the experience in European-style warfare was provided by non-British sources (Lafayette, Pulaski, and Von Steuben being the most famous examples).

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

Do they not learn enough history to know that the British were also fighting Spain and France at the same time as they were fighting the American colonies?

Many do know this. I make it a point of emphasis. Without the French, the Revolutionary War would have been a much more drawn-out affair; perhaps it would have been unsuccessful. To be fair though, the French did not provide direct military support until after the Continental army won the battle of Saratoga on its own, proving to the French that the British-American colonies had a chance of succeeding in their rebellion. After losing much of its own colonial territory in the French and Indian War, the French did not want to risk additional losses by backing a losing team. It was definitely a team-effort and I teach my students this.

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

Do they not know that the war in the American colonies was an unpopular war in Britain and many British officers felt that they should not be making war on their colonial cousins but should be expending all their efforts against Spain/France etc. etc.?

This isn't a point of emphasis in standard courses, but AP students could probably discuss British [Whig] support for the colonists in Parliament. The vocal minority not withstanding, the majority in Parliament rebuffed the Colonists demands for redress of the representation question as early as 1766 with the Declaratory Act.

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

Do the Americans not realize that they owe the French a debt of gratitude for all the assistance that France gave them and that without the Louisiana Purchase they would not exist in the form they are today?

Absolutely, but this doesn't make them any more pro-French. It's not like the Louisiana Territory was a gift- if Napoleon hadn't been hard up for cash and already on his heels in the Caribbean (thanks, Toussaint Louverture!), it's unlikely that the deal would have been made. This is veering into alternative history a bit, but it would have likely been taken by force, like Mexican territory was, at a later date. As the British found out in 1776 and 1812, the American colonies were just too large and too distant to control from across an ocean (a key argument made by British national Thomas Paine in his famous pro-independence pamphlet, Common Sense).

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

Do they not know that the Statue of Liberty was a gift from France to the American people and had its origin in a similar project intended to stand at the entrance to the Suez Canal in imitation of the Colossus of Rhodes?

Yes to the former, probably not to the latter.

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

Do they not get taught that France left NATO because DeGaulle felt Europe had been betrayed by the USA after JFK's declaration that the US would no longer consider using nuclear weapons as a first option if the USSR invaded Europe and that this action has influenced French foreign policy ever since?

No. But should they? DeGaulle had lots of problems with the U.S. and had always been a particularly troublesome ally- just ask Churchill! The reason you cited was largely a fait accompli and if it hadn't been that, it would have been something else. Much of France's post-WWII foreign policy was based on maintaining its own diminishing hold on its crumbling foreign empire.

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

Do they not realize that all their "cheese eating surrender monkey" comments just serve to reinforce the French belief of US betrayal?

No, but they should. It's unfortunate. At the same time, I think some Americans feel that the French have been ungrateful for the assistance the U.S. provided them in the two World Wars. This sentiment surely drives a lot of the France bashing that goes on today, albeit unfairly.

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

They were also interested in the notion that not many Americans understood just how well the USA emerged from WW2 - going from the Great Depression into a period of massive manufacturing and then the liberties derived from the Marshall Plan boosted the US economy far beyond what anyone had projected and gave the USA the base for it's economic dominance of the world. It appears to us that none of this is given much relevance in US education.

My colleagues and I make all of these points of emphasis. Our state and national history standards do too.

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

It's been interesting trying to examine how the USA perceives itself. As an outsider to US culture, it's a little surprising to see that the USA has taken ownership of the terms "America" and "American" to refer exclusively to them because in some countries we were taught that America refers to the two continents. The inference was that anyone from North or South America was an American just like anyone from France or Poland or Greece was a European and anyone from China or Thailand or Indonesia was Asian.

No arrogance or offense is intended. It's just easier to say "I'm an American" than it is "I'm a Citizen of the United States of [North] America". It's an abbreviation, if you will.

I hope that this was enlightening and not offensive. I just felt that I needed to set the record straight.