Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 September 5

= September 5 =

Date of birth for a sitting U.S. Governor (Lolo Matalasi Moliga)
This guy (Lolo Matalasi Moliga) is a very public figure – a U.S. Governor (in American Samoa). Is it not possible to find out his birth date? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Not all cultures place the same emphasis on birthdays that we do. It may well be that the exact date wasn't even recorded at the time of his birth. Wymspen (talk) 08:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * It's American Samoa in the 40s, not darkest Africa. I would be very surprised if he didn't have a birth certificate with a specific date recorded.  However, it is certainly possible that the details might never have been made public.  Lots of people choose not to share their specific birthdate, and since birth dates are usually considered private information the government won't give it to you directly.  Dragons flight (talk) 09:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, I "get" all of what you stated. Namely, that lots of people choose not to share their specific birthdate, and since birth dates are usually considered private information the government won't give it to you directly.  However, we are not talking about a private citizen; we are talking about a public official.  And a very high-ranking one.  And, in the USA, no less.  And, in 2017, no less.   So, aren't there different standards -- for lack of a better word -- when people run for public office in America?  I mean, don't they have to fill out all sorts of bureaucratic forms and disclosures, etc.?  Certainly, "date of birth" would seem a basic and obvious component of any such forms.  There is probably some minimum age to be Governor (I assume?), much like the minimum age to be President of the USA.  Doesn't a candidate running for office have to "prove" his qualification somehow?  I mean, we're not asking for a lot; I would have thought that "date of birth" is pretty basic and standard.  No?  I have done some "research" on the internet.  And -- for whatever reason -- this guy has made a very deliberate effort to "hide" his birthday.  It seems quite odd, for a US Governor.  Plus: He is at least disclosing the year of his birth; so, it's not like he's trying to "appear younger" in the way that a lot of vain Hollywood celebrities might.  Why disclose the year, but leave out the date?  It all seems quite odd to me.  Any thoughts?  Thanks.     Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * There are minimum ages for many Federal offices, like President, Senator, and Rep. However, governors may not have a minimum, as it would be up to each state to set that up (not sure if this applies to territories or if the Federal Government would set those).  Note that Michigan Governor Stevens T. Mason became territorial governor at 22 and state governor at 24.


 * But, even if there is a minimum, much like the minimum age to buy liquor, if somebody is obviously well past that age, they may not require proof, but just take his word when he checks a box on a form stating that he is older than the minimum. It's also possible to set a maximum age, but that wouldn't be popular with elderly voters, who are a major voting block in most areas.  The more likely reason for somebody to require his birth cert is to prove citizenship.  StuRat (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Typically you have to sign a statement under penalty of perjury that you meet the qualification to run for office. Documentary proof is often not required upfront, but only used if there is a legitimate dispute over whether a candidate is qualified.  Even then, any documents presented to the election officials are likely to be confidential.  So even if he did present proof of age, id, residency, etc., the governing authorities often wouldn't release more than an affirmation that the requirements have been satisfied.  Dragons flight (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * You are likely correct. But, it still seems quite odd.  Especially for a public official.  Why disclose the year, but not the date?   It seems that all of the other public officials (the hundreds upon hundreds of Senators, Governors, Representatives, Presidents, Vice-Presidents, Judges, Justices, etc., etc., etc.) have never had a problem with this before.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Why don't you try contacting him directly? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was thinking of that. But: (1) I don't have a lot of free time.  (2) It's not a "high priority".  And (3) I assume I will get the typical government employee run-around and double talk and typical "non"-helpfulness.  But, I still may contact his office and inquire.  If not for the actual date, then the reason for the "secrecy".     Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * So, today, I did send a few emails to some of his official staff members. I will see what they report back to me.   Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Wow, miracle of miracles. I actually did get a substantive reply from his staff.  The reply was actually quite thorough and comprehensive.  I will start a new section about this in another discussion thread.  Since the email reply raises other questions.  Thanks.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I myself am ethnically and culturally bog-standard English and live in England, but I don't reveal my birthday to colleagues or friends, and ask those who know it for administrative reasons (such as employers' HR Departments) to treat it as confidential. I simply dislike "celebrating" it publicly and dislike others' assumptions that I would, and what I am conventionally expected to do in order to do so: I'm sure I'm not unique.
 * I'm not familiar with Samoan culture, but I don't assume it's similar to European culture with respect to birthdays; we need someone who is to explain the context of Governor Moliga's concealment of his. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.204.180.96 (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree. I tend to think that there must be some sort of "cultural thing" at play here.  Number 1:  That he is doing this at all (i.e., "hiding" his birthday).  And, Number 2:  That his constituents don't have an outcry and "demand" transparency and disclosure.  I suspect there is some cultural issue at play.  I will see what I can find out.  To be 100% honest: this is the "real reason" that I want to know his birthday.  Not knowing it is "screwing up" this chart that I just worked on: List of current United States governors by age.   Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Not everyone is as hung up on birth info as the Obama "birther" hoaxsters were. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * He was clearly not born in a hospital or medical facility as there were none on that island in 1949 (and nothing more than a minor medical unit now). That means that there would be no record in a medical office indicating the exact date and time of birth. In 1949, the island had no television and limited radio communications. There would be no need to know what is on TV on Thursday - meaning that the people wouldn't need to focus on the specific month and day all the time. They weren't writing checks and putting the date on them. Therefore, his actual date of birth may not be known. His family may only know the season. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Clearly? According to this  there was a hospital in American Samoa prior to 1946.  This photo claims to show the hospital in 1944.   Today, >99% of births on American Samoa occur in the hospital, though not the same facility as existed in early days.  As best I can tell, American Samoa's vital statistics office first started recording births around the 1890s, which would be similar to most US states.  I have no way of knowing if they recorded the day and month of birth all the way back then, but I suspect the US government would have insisted on it before the 1940s.  So, I strongly suspect there is a record of his birth that records something for his day and month of birth.  If he was born at home, such information might be imprecise, but I would be very surprised if nothing was recorded.  Dragons flight (talk) 11:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * He was born on Ta'u. The hospital is on Tutuila. Since all documentation clearly states that he was born on Ta'u, he was clearly not born in the hospital on Tutuila. Births were recorded yearly. Every year, a report is made for the U.S. Congress that includes a count of births and deaths for the previous year. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * This is the 1949 report for American Samoa. It includes information on the hospital, clearly on Tutuila, not Tu'a. It has a lot of information about the islands in general. I find it very odd that so much of the report deals with crime while constantly claiming that there is pretty much no crime on the islands. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Good points. They may not have had hospitals and TVs and radios.  Did they not have calendars, though?  Also, it's not necessarily "clear" that he was/was not born in a hospital.  This is the first that I am hearing of it.  And the first mention whatsoever of that possibility. (Or "probability", more likely.)   Thanks.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Look, everyone here is going off the rails with speculation. There is no requirement that any person's birthdate be published in a public manner.  Some people do NOT have their birthdates recorded in a means that is necessary for verifiability purposes at Wikipedia.  Given that, there should be no expectation that every article about a person would have a birthdate.  If there is no source, there is no way to add it to the article.  And there should be no expectation that a source exists here.  Of course, if one DOES exist, we should include the information.  But there should never be the expectation that it would exist.  -- Jayron 32 20:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * No one is going off the rails. And, yes, there is indeed an expectation.  That expectation surfaces in the fact that 99.9999999999% of all other American public officers reveal their birth date information.  So, if you want to play semantics, it is a 99.9999999999% expectation.  Which, in plain English, is simply called an "expectation".  I am here referring to the Governor in question, and/or all like situated American public officials (in "high" public offices).  I am not referring to any "Joe Blow" with a Wikipedia article.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So,, are you asserting that there are at least a trillion American public officers, of whom one fails to reveal their birth date? Or that there are, say, ten thousand of them, and one one-hundred-millionth of one of them fails to do so? --ColinFine (talk) 14:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am! With a margin of error, of course!   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Outside of my immediate family, I don't know the birthdate of ANYONE I've ever met. Why would I expect to?  People don't generally go around making big deals of it; if most people don't know the birthdates of people they've met and have relationships with, why would they for people they've never met.  That you can find people who's birthdates are published is besides the point; I've never seen any evidence that there is any requirement that birthdates MUST be made public information; if such a requirement does not exist, there should be no surprise that any person has chosen not to do so.  If you cannot force someone to publish their birthdate, why would one be surprised that some people's birthdates cannot be found.  -- Jayron 32 11:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what you are talking about. You are going way off course of the topic at hand.  I am not talking about your friends and acquaintances in your life.  I am not talking about my friends and acquaintances in my life.  I am talking about a U.S. Governor.   And, like I said, every other public official in the USA publishes their birthdate.  And there have been hundreds/thousands of them: Presidents, Senators, Justices, Congressmen, Governors, etc., etc., etc.  So, I am not sure why you are surprised that I am surprised that this particular Governor does not publish his.  You keep conflating "the birthday of an ordinary citizen" with "the birthday of a USA public official in high elected office".  Two very different things.  I assume there is no "requirement" for anyone to publish their birthdate.  But, every single one of the other hundreds/thousands of USA public officials have done so.  For the past 250 years.  So, yeah, I am surprised that this one guy has not done so.  It may be for a very valid reason.  Or not.  Who knows?  But, let's not act like it's not surprising and that his case is the "norm".     Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Has anyone forced those officials, required those officials, commanded those officials, coerced those officials, or otherwise done any action do make it mandatory for those officials to publish their birthdate? -- Jayron 32 16:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Again, what are you talking about? Where is there a claim that people were "forced"?  Where is there a claim that it was made "mandatory"?  I have no idea what you are talking about.  And you are constantly creating red herrings and bringing up totally irrelevant topics.  Stick to the question at hand.  I said, for the 800th time: when 99.9999999999% of other high elected officials do this (i.e., disclose their "private" birthday), I am surprised when this one guy does not.  What part do you not understand?  And how can I clarify for you?     Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * And I hold no expectations of anyone to do anything ever. It makes it easier for me to avoid errors that way, because expectations can be wrong.  Since your expectation isn't wrong, perhaps you can produce your source so we can put this to rest.  -- Jayron 32 01:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I received an email directly from one of his staff. I will have to double-check.  But, it was either his "chief of staff" or his "executive secretary" or some such.  As I said, I will have to double-check.  Now, herein lies a new problem.  I suspect that a personal email from Moliga's aide to me is not "sufficient" as a Wikipedia source.  Am I correct?   Actually, the aide sent me a copy (Word document) of his "professional resume and CV".  So, maybe that document is a reliable source?  I have no idea.  In my follow-up email to the aide, I am going to ask why his correct date of birth is not listed on any of his official or governmental websites.  And maybe that will spur whatever "powers that be" to correct his entries on his official and governmental websites.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That's fantastic! Thanks for doing the hard leg work!  Your efforts here are to be admired.  The only issue with an unpublished CV is that it is unpublished, though.  One of the key things with WP:RS is that people would have access to the source to verify the information (not necessarily online; print-only sources are fine so long as there is a reasonable expectation that the source is published and available in publicly-available places like libraries or archives).  Your work is awesome here, but it would be needed to see the information published in a reliable source.  -- Jayron 32 11:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes thanks. I agree though actually adding it to wikipedia is going to be difficult. In the meantime though, I've removed the 1949 year which was unsourced anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 14:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * and Thanks, also.  I will follow up with the aide, to see if they can update or correct some official reliable sources, so that this info can be placed into Wikipedia.  Thanks.     Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * We have 3,689 living people whose DOBs (DsOB?) are not known. And 1,514 dead people with the same issue.  They're all notable, by wiki-definition, but I'm sure there are numerous very well-known names in amongst them.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Famous people are listed in publications such as Who's Who.  There is a standard format, typically full name, date and place of birth, schools attended, date and place of marriage, name of wife/husband, names and dates of birth of children, etc. 92.8.216.51 (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

So, I got an email from his staff. His birthday is August 12, 1947. (So, basically, not even "close" to the "1949" that we had expected!)   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * That is better than August 3, 1971 claimed by Ballotpedia. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 12:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, all. I received an email from his staff, indicating that his birthday is August 12, 1947. In my follow-up email to the staff aide, I am going to ask why his correct date of birth is not listed on any of his official or governmental websites. And maybe that will spur whatever "powers that be" to correct his entries on his official and governmental websites. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Tourism and Dutch disease
Does tourism have a Dutch disease effect on the economy? Does it count as a natural resource, at least from a functional perspective? Would European economies like Spain, Italy or Greece neglect the education of its citizens since they have an industry where they can obtain income from?--Hofhof (talk) 07:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * A case in point is Charleston, South Carolina. Mayor Riley purposely turned it into a tourist city in 1970. After that, he worked on moving everything else out of the city. He moved out most of the port (creating an "inland port" 200 miles away), a lot of law offices (moved to Mt. Pleasant and Daniel Island), and most of the general population support (too expensive to be downtown once tourism took off), such as grocery stores and general retail stores. He also moved nearly all poor housing. An inspector checked the soil and found it was contaminated. Everyone was immediately evicted. The cheap housing was removed. Then, the soil was checked again and it was fine. The city built an aquarium and IMax theater where the contaminated housing used to be. (Yes, I believe it was a scam, but there is no proof.) He was unable to move (or even contain) the universities. Instead of turning land into more tourism, the universities tended to purchase the land as soon as it was vacant. Eyeballing it, I would say that at least half of downtown Charleston (south of the crosstown) is either the medical university or the college, along with supporting student housing. Tourism has now shrunk into a small area surrounding the market. So, tourism pushed out existing business. Then, universities pushed out tourism. When I left Charleston, years ago, it was common for people to say that it wouldn't be long before all of downtown was a university campus. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 12:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, according to our own article, the Dutch disease refers to "any development that results in a large inflow of foreign currency". Tourism certainly fits the bill, although I have never seen countries neglecting education as a mechanism for Dutch disease. Anyway, here are links to some academic articles discussing tourism and the Dutch disease in various circumstances, including the mechanisms for how they are connected: 1, 2, 3 (all are behind paywalls, I'm afraid, but abstracts are available). No longer a penguin (talk) 08:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I want to point out that "foreign currency" should not be read as "currency from a foreign country". It should be read as "currency from outside of the area". As an example, a lot of people in the United States travel to Orlando Florida. So, Orlando gets a lot of foreign currency. It is still the same type of currency (American dollars), but it is foreign to Orlando. As such, the economy of Orlando is based on sucking in money from outsiders instead of being internally self-sufficient. The example I made above was based on a city going from being a generic port city economy to a tourist economy and, to qualify as Dutch disease, the port economy was shoved out of the city. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 13:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) Whether education is neglected in tourist areas depends on if it is seen as important to tourism. Certainly some education, such as hotel management and local history knowledge, are actually beneficial.  Other types of education, like engineering, less so.


 * 2) To be totally dominated by tourism a place needs to be small in population. The examples you gave of Spain, Italy, and Greece are too large to get most of their income from tourism.  So, while some areas do, the nations as a whole do not.  A much smaller nation, like Monaco, could get most of it's income from tourism (although they are only at 15% now).  In Spain, on the other hand: "In the last five decades, international tourism in Spain has grown to become the second largest in the world in terms of spending, worth approximately 40 billion Euros or about 5% of GDP in 2006."  So, even a huge tourism industry only accounts for 5% of the economy of a regular-sized nation.  Italy = 10.1% of GDP.  Greece = 18% of GDP.


 * 3) Here's a list of the top tourist nations: . As I said, they are mostly small in population (many are island nations).  Interestingly, none of them make it past 50% GDP, though.  That would be highly dependent on what is considered tourism dollars, though.  For example, do taxes collected from hotels and used to build and run airports and ports count as tourism dollars ?   StuRat (talk) 14:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Italy as well has one of the world's largest economies, top 12 by most measures, third largest in the Eurozone. See Economy of Italy.  Its tourism sector is large, but still only 7.2% of the Italian economy.  -- Jayron 32 14:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I got 10.1% from our article, so you might want to change that if your source is better or more recent than what they used, or perhaps put in a range. StuRat (talk) 15:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Neither answer needs be wrong, different methodologies will result in different values. -- Jayron 32 16:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Hence the suggestion for a range. StuRat (talk) 17:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Are there any impediments to U.S. underground nuclear testing?
As I understand it the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty only affects above-ground explosions. The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty was never ratified by the U.S. (nor North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, China and others, all required for it to go into effect) so it seems like a dead letter at this point. That leaves the Threshold Test Ban Treaty that I know of (or rather, our disambig at Test Ban Treaty knows of). But the TTBT was signed between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, which seems to put it into the same "treaty with a country that no longer exists" class as the ABM treaty. Given that some countries are suggesting that the U.S. give up conventional exercises in exchange for NK giving up underground nuclear tests, it seems inevitable that the U.S. will want to put underground testing back on the table. So far as I know, with the most recent test in 1996 I think, there shouldn't be any practical difficulties in terms of additional fallout. So is there anything to stand in the way? Note: there's some recent commentary on the idea but I'm not sure how comprehensive it is. Wnt (talk) 11:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Underground testing is expensive, politically unpopular, useful for developing new weapons and largely superseded by computer modelling. To avoid testing when this had become a political problem, the US invested very heavily in developing modelling techniques. Nor has the US felt the need to develop many new weapons (or at least, a new physics package for within them). So why do it? Could is not the same as should. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Political pragmatism and diplomacy. It pisses off countries who's friendly relations the U.S. needs to maintain in order to achieve its own goals.  It also has low amounts of scientific necessity; the operation of such nuclear devices has been well established decades and decades ago. The main purpose is to prove to other countries that you have such capabilities, see Deterrence theory.  -- Jayron 32 12:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The U.S. has simulation software so they don't need to do underground tests. If the U.S. restarted underground testing, they would be criticised for needlessly testing when they have simulation software instead. Sleigh (talk) 12:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Treaties don't become null and void just because one of the countries has a revolution or changes name. Dmcq (talk) 16:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The USSR has not merely changed its name, it ceased to exist in December 1991. While the Russian Federation is recognised internationally as its legal successor (along with Ukraine and the Repubic of Belarus in some respects), one would have to dig to find out if this particular treaty remains in force, or has been quietly jettisoned. {The poster formerly known as 87.81,.230.195} 90.204.180.96 (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Russia is the only successor to the Soviet Union with respect to nuclear weapons, since the other "union republics" renounced them. AnonMoos (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * In case there's some confusion, the US did consider the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty to remain in force as our article notes. The reason the treaty no longer exists, again as stated by our article, is not because Russia etc being the successor states of the Soviet Union was unrecognised by some party, but because the US withdrew. Nil Einne (talk) 17:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * (EC) And as far as I can tell, the US likewise considers the TTBT to remain in force. See for example the State Department website [//www.state.gov/t/isn/5204.htm] where it's listed as "Current Treaties and Agreements". I wouldn't be surprised if this isn't simply some abstract thing either. Since the treat has monitoring etc requirements I suspect there are people who are somehow involved in aspects of the treaty on occasion. The treat does have a withdrawal option. With at least 6 months notification before the automatic 5 year renewal. Or at any time, again with 6 month notification if there are " extraordinary events related to the subject matter of this Treaty have jeopardized its supreme interests". Nil Einne (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the correction! My impression probably dates back to news coverage  running up to the 2002 withdrawal, which I might have missed or forgotten.  Again... it's the stuff you think you know that gets you. Wnt (talk) 18:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Generally the application of nuclear power will always cause some leakage and contamination, because there is not really a 100%-containment in nuclear physics. "Fallout" is actually a cleaning process that washes out an contaminated atmosphere by rain. Its of course an imminent threat if it is close, on the ground, instead of on the move, high in the atmosphere. It implies some ignorance tho to hope for no rain so there will not be local "fallout". but logically and physically of course it does not vanish, it dilutes by spreading thin, thereby eventually falling under what is set as Occupational exposure limit. In consequence it keeps rising on a global level tho. So there is a similar dispute about the use of nuclear technology in science and politics like the global warming dispute. The main difference is obviously, since there is little to non change in the use and application of nuclear power, that the threat of contamination is still widely ignored and played down. So there is an impediment but its ignored. --Kharon (talk) 01:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The whole assumption behind this Q is flawed, that the US could somehow use underground nuclear testing as a leverage point in negotiating a stop to NK nuclear tests. Not only would NK be unconcerned about US underground nuclear testing, they would use it as a pretext to justify their own.  Neither will conventional military exercises make things better.  The ONLY leverage to get NK to stop is to get China to stop trading with them.  And it looks like the only way to get that to happen is to threaten to cut off trade with China (may require withdrawal from the World Trade Organization).   StuRat (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Simulations are good enough only if you're not going to make changes to the design. At some point in the future, the US will have to conduct a few tests because it will not keep on using the same old designs indefinitely. Sticking to old designs can become impractical when old components become unavailable. The changes may then not be about making more powerful bombs but rather about such things as using new materials, electronics etc. and you then need to test whether the bomb still works. Count Iblis (talk) 00:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

History textbooks in the UK
I've been reading Lies My Teacher Told Me, and it made me curious about something related: non-US perspectives on US-related history. The first thing I wondered about was what an English textbook (equivalent to US high school - sorry, don't know what you'd call it, the 3-4 years before University) would say about the American Revolution. Is the perspective one of "silly tax-evading Yanks think they invented representative democracy", or one of "in retrospect, yeah, King George was an ass, can't really blame them"? Or something else?

But what that perspective is isn't my question. My question is: What is a common, popular UK history textbook (US high school equivalent) that covers this that I could look for (used) on Amazon? So I can read it myself. If there's a particularly popular/common one that most UK schools use, that would be great to know. It's important to me that it be a textbook aimed at pre-University kids. I don't want in-depth books that were written by expert historians who happen to be British; I want to see how UK schools brainwash kids over-simplify this stuff, and compare it to how US schools brainwash kids over-simplify this stuff.

And, ultimately, how French and Spanish and Canadian and Mexican schools brainwash kids over-simplify this stuff too, but that can be another question someday. Baby steps. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In the UK, history isn't typically taught as "here are some things that happened and what your opinion about them should be." (I do have the impression - possibly entirely false - from popular US culture such as TV shows and films that this is how it's taught in the USA at high school level. I also have the impression - again possibly entirely falsely - that most of the history that gets taught is about the Revolution and the Founding Fathers; certainly if anyone in a US TV show is depicted as learning history at school - at any age - it's almost always the War of Independence that's being studied).
 * The National Curriculum for England for History for Key Stage 3 (ages 11 to 14 approximately) is viewable here . The intention is that "Teaching should equip pupils to ask perceptive questions, think critically, weigh evidence, sift arguments, and develop perspective and judgement." There is a certain emphasis on the skills of history such as comparing conflicting sources and identifying possible bias. The exact nature of how much of the history curriculum should be about skills and how much about knowledge and exactly what areas of history should be taught has remained controversial. This is a news article around the time of the promulgation of the current version of the history curriculum.
 * The American War of Independence (as it would tend to be called in the UK) is mentioned as a possible topic of study for 11- to 14-year-olds in the curriculum linked above, but it is only a suggested topic, not a requirement. I'm not sure it is particularly commonly taught in English schools as it's a relatively minor event in British History. (However, studies of 19th and Early 20th C US History are popular at A-Level reflecting I suspect the much greater importance on the world stage of the US in more recent times).
 * History is not a mandatory subject after the age of 14 in England. However, many pupils do continue to study history at GCSE (up to age 16). The curriculum for these age groups is set by the examining boards - of which there are several. These are the history curricula for several of the main exam boards, , , , , . Only one (the final one linked) appears to offer a module option that includes the War of Independence - and that is within a wider topic on the period 1713 to 1783 in North America. Valiantis (talk) 22:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "...a relatively minor event in British History." Wow, nearly two centuries out, and the Brits are still suffering "sour grapes". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope, that's the way it is, nothing to do with "sour grapes". A lot has happened to Britain since then. Fgf10 (talk) 06:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Quite: we've had a lot more "history" that the relatively young USA, where the unspoken omission is what happened in North America before European settlers got there. My secondary school history lessons (i.e. from age 11) started with the British situation prior to the Roman forays of Julius Caesar, and touched upon various eras all the way up to the first half of the 20th century, which is what my 'O' Level exams focussed on at age 16 – so about 2,000 years plus. I've filled in a lot of the gaps for myself since then. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.121.160.76 (talk) 08:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep telling yourselves that. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Why, 100 years of Great Power status, and still inferiority complexes! ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * How much is said in history books in America about the desire to take over the lands of the native Americans as being one of the major causes of the War of Independence? Everyone makes a big thing of their own country. Dmcq (talk) 10:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The Royal Proclamation of 1763 line was only to a very minor degree due to any British desire to protect the Indians, and it would be kind of naive to think otherwise. 1763 was the exact same year as the incident of Jeffery Amherst, 1st Baron Amherst and the blankets! AnonMoos (talk) 03:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * That's what happens when you have well over ten times as much history to go through. Fgf10 (talk) 13:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know; 1066, and all that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's an informal study of what other students, mostly Brits, were taught about the American Revolution. I can vouch for the Canadian who remembers the French Revolution seeming more important. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sure is glad Manifest destiny isn't on their own curriculum- let alone anyone else's :D &mdash;  fortuna  velut luna  10:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * When we learned about the American Revolution in elementary school in Ontario, we learned mostly about the brave Loyalists who fled to Canada and the evil Whigs who persecuted them. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Personal reflection &mdash; to some extent I agree with the British description "war of independence" rather than "revolution". More or less important I can't say, but it was a very different thing from the French Revolution.
 * From my perspective, partly what I was taught but partly my own reception of it, the French Revolution is indelibly stained by the Reign of Terror. It started out well enough, maybe.  If the Girondists had had their way, if it hadn't been for the bloodthirsty Montagnards, it might have come out OK.  Instead France had to get to the other side of Napoleon before they could settle down on a reasonable liberal republic.
 * Our revolution, or war of independence if you prefer, did not really have that. Of course it did nothing to quench the two great American sins, slavery and the genocide of the American Indians.  But those predated it and did not have that much to do with it.  It was a true liberal revolution, whereas the French one really was not. --Trovatore (talk) 10:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Minor quibble: Liberalism didn't come to France overnight either after Napoleon. France didn't arrive at a stable liberal democracy until at LEAST the late 19th century, following the communards and the eventual formation of the French Third Republic, even then the early Third Republic had strong anti-liberal and monarchist elements (see 16 May 1877 crisis).  Notably, the French are currently on their Fifth Republic, a state less than 100 years old, so there's even more history in there as well before we get to a stable liberal state. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In Canada, the American War of Independence (or whatever you want to call it) was not a focus at all. Much more important - to us - was the War of 1812, which is probably not surprising. Matt Deres (talk) 11:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think our teachers ignored the dozen or so events American pop culture feels most strongly about retelling, assuming we'd pick up the general idea from TV, movies, comics, video games and commercials. These events (or periods) are essentially their own subgenres, and they're practically impossible to avoid. No point repeating the tales yet again in Canadian or American schools, but American schools need to double down regardless, because they don't have a non-famous history to substitute. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So until I actually lived in Canada for a year, I wouldn't have known what you two were talking about in saying that the War of 1812 was more important to you. We don't spend much time on the Canadian aspect.
 * In the version I learned, the War of 1812 was about impressment, and about making England finally accept that we were an independent power.
 * Especially avid history students may also know that, by the way, there were also some skirmishes north of the border. But I didn't, or at least had forgotten it &mdash; and I got (if memory serves) 780 out of 800 on the history Achievement Test (now called SAT II). --Trovatore (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Anecdotally, my experience in the 90s matches that of Valiantis and 2.121.160.76: The American War of Independence (as we call it here) was done at middle school (and the presentation generally tended towards "in retrospect, yeah, King George was an ass, can't really blame them", although with the blame more on the government in general than the king personally. And I think with an additional element of "trying to rule people half way round the world who don't want to be ruled by you doesn't work").  At high-school, the focus tended to be on the 19th and 20th centuries: the Industrial Revolution, social reform, Women's Suffrage, one of WWI or WWII (can't remember which) and the Cold War. Iapetus (talk) 12:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I couldn't find the current history curriculum for Polish high schools, but I found one for grades 5–8 of the elementary school (roughly ages 11–15). Regarding the topic of "Creation of the United States", Polish elementary school students are expected to be able to: — Kpalion(talk) 16:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "discuss the causes and results of the American war for independence;"
 * "enumerate fundamental institutions of the United States government, explain their functioning, evaluate the way in which the American constitution realized the separation of powers principle in practice;"
 * "describe Polish contribution to the struggle for the independence of the United States."
 * Interesting. Poland intersects with 18th century America in interesting ways.  Besides the contribution of Polish military minds to the cause of independence (Tadeusz Kościuszko, Casimir Pulaski) the Partitions of Poland were themselves a direct inspiration for certain principles in the Constitution of the United States, as explained in several of the Federalist Papers; that the Polish Constitution of the time was deemed by the writers of the U.S. constitution as inadequate to stop its partition by its neighbors caused the writers to put certain provisions into the U.S. constitution.  Federalist No. 14, Federalist No. 39 as a few examples.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * What I find interesting is that in Polish schools they tell you about Kościuszko and Pułaski, but not about Haym Salomon. — Kpalion(talk) 11:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, perhaps because war is more interesting than banking. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Probably the majority of the ancestry of current-day American Jews goes through what is now Germany, Poland, and Ukraine, but with a few special exceptions (very recent immigrants and such), they do not generally consider themselves to be German-Americans, Polish-Americans, or Ukrainian-Americans, and neither are they generally considered such by established German-American, Polish-American, or Ukrainian-American groups... AnonMoos (talk) 03:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I believe a British book the OP may want is "2015 OCR A Level History unit Y212: The American Revolution and the Birth of the USA 1740-1801 Second Edition" which may be obtained by application here. Blooteuth (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I can't remember where, but I once read something about how before the 1940s or so, the British educational system pretty much left off covering United States history after independence, so many people at the time tended to know very little about the U.S. Civil War other than its effects on the British textile industry, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 03:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, you can't study the history of everywhere for all time without reducing it to a meaningless gloss. In my 1970s secondary education in London, our O Level course (exam at age 16) covered US isolationism and the Great Depression (including the New Deal) in the context of the causes of the Second World War. My A Level course (exam at 18) covered "British history 1750-1950" and "European history 1750-1950" as separate modules. The British module looked at the War of Independence from the standpoint of the effect on the British government and constitution, the effect on British colonial policy (the end of the mercantile system) and the domestic libertarian support for the Colonists by commentators like David Hume which ultimately led to parliamentary reform. As you say, the US Civil War was only mentioned for its effect on the British economy, but it has no real bearing on the development of the UK, which abolished the slave trade in 1807 and slavery outright in 1833. Perhaps the Russian Civil War was much more of a game changer. Alansplodge (talk) 09:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * (after archiving) I'm sorry, I spaced out that I'd asked this. Just want to thank all the responders, but particularly those who gave me links to follow: User:Valiantis, User:InedibleHulk, User:Kpalion, and User:Blooteuth. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)