# Is Lincoln studied in other countries than USA?



## Txell Casas

Hello all,
I was surprised today in an English class in USA to find that people from lots of countries of Asia, plus Brazil and Mexico, had studied in their schools in their countries about Lincoln and specially they knew about one speech he gave in 1863. In Spain we don't study that and they were very surprised of that.
I would like to know from people of other countries if they also study Lincoln in their schools as basic knowledge.

Thanks


----------



## sokol

Do you refer to the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 (which I only wikipedia'ed now, I couldn't remember the exact date out of memory)?

In Austria certainly we learn in school the importance of Abraham Lincoln's presidency especially with reference to the Civil War and the emancipation of African Americans - but you won't ever study any of the speeches given by Lincoln in detail.
Not even in university or, to be more precise, only if you're in a lecture which is only concerned with either Lincoln himself or slavery or political speeches.

History in the Americas seems to be concentrated more on personalities than in Europe; this also seems to be true in this case, concerning Abraham Lincoln.
Who ever has learned by hard the names of all presidents (kings/queens, etc.) of their country here in Europe? No one here in Austria, that's for sure.


----------



## Zsanna

It's much the same in Hungary as sokol explained the situation in Austria.

... With the exception for learning about the kings (and queens) who instigated (or created, etc.) the great tendencies of the era of their reign.


----------



## Alxmrphi

We don't in England, I've heard references to it through the TV, only by watching American TV we learn virtually ANYTHING about America, if you asked the young public/young adults I'd be surprised if many people knew he abolished slavery, besides that I know nothing about him except he wore a big hat and got shot.

As for schools, nothing like that is taught.


----------



## Outsider

I once read a book that compared the history curricula of several countries. Judging from the examples in it, European history curricula are very parochial compared to those of much of the world. It's all about us, us, us, and then a spattering of the Industrial Revolution when there's barely any time left. You rarely get the time to study the 20th century with any seriousness. Also, from some point on, history tends to focus on our particular country, and forget all about the rest of the world.

When I went to school, the American Revolution was mentioned as part of the "liberal revolutions" that followed the Enlightenment, but without much depth. As for the American Civil War, I don't remember studying it at all, though I may be forgetful. And speeches -- we don't even learn the speeches of our politicians.


----------



## avok

No, we learn nothing about Abraham Lincoln here in Turkey. I was not surprised that in Brazil they learn about him because many Brazilian men bear the name "Lincoln", there must be some relation between the two.


----------



## Macunaíma

We certainly study US history in Brazilian schools. How could we study the French Revolution and neglect the principles -and interests- that guided the foundation of the United States? Some periods of US history are studied more than others: the foundation, the civil war, the 1929 financial crisis and the 'New Deal' policy implemented by Roosevelt and the Marshall Plan after World War II. Not to mention, of course, the Cold War. 

I have to say I totally disagree with Sokol, that history in 'the Americas' is centered in the study of personalities. Individuals are studied to the extend that their biographies or ideas influence a historical period, and they are most often not politicians or kings: Adam Smith and Karl Marx, for example. I'm not sure I can tell the name of all Brazilian presidents either but that has never been an issue, as they are studied according to the importance their administrations had on Brazilian history from a contemporary perspective, and not randomly, just in order we know their names.


----------



## alexacohen

sokol said:


> In Austria certainly we learn in school the importance of Abraham Lincoln's presidency especially with reference to the Civil War and the emancipation of African Americans - but you won't ever study any of the speeches given by Lincoln in detail.


Same in Spain; or maybe not now, as the person who opened the thread is Spanish.
Subjects have changed since I was a student.


----------



## Pellok

Yep logically each student learn its country's history. But there's a difference between ancient and modern history : modern history must be a lot influenced by country's one... I'm french and 've learned especially french kings, Revolution, Enlightenment, etc.
I regret not to have informations on the Civil War for example. USA are very slighty represented in current studies... But isn't it the same for France in USA...


----------



## Josh_

I just wanted to point out that while we obviously study Abraham Lincoln in school here in the US, we generally don't study his speeches.  Although, I would imagine most Americans have probably heard the phrase "Four score and seven years ago" and I would think most know where it came from.


----------



## palomnik

For the record, I don't think that the speech of Lincoln's that Txell is referring to is the Emancipation Proclamation.  Lincoln's most famous speech - and one of the shortest really great speeches in world history - was the Gettysbug Address, which is about half a page long, and which at one time American schoolchildren had to memorize.

As for the overall subject of how much attention is paid to other people's history, I don't think Americans are very good at it.  Most educated Englishmen I've met can name most, if not all the kings of England, though.  Scandinavians have always amazed me at the extent of their knowledge of American history, though; I think there is a perception in Scandinavia that a considerable proportion of their population emigrated to the USA in the nineteenth century, and they feel that the USA is a major factor in their own history as a result.


----------



## sokol

palomnik said:


> Most educated Englishmen I've met can name most, if not all the kings of England, though.



In contrast, hardly any Austrian might remember all presidents of even the Second (Austrian) Republic and most might not even know a single one of the First Republic, while many might know the names of _some _of the Habsburg Emperors but only educated Austrians whil know more than 3-5 of them.

If the moderators may be *moderate *enough to tolerate a small digression , I'd like to elaborate here on what I *really *meant:
Concerning this, my point as made above was referring to the difference between *personalised history* which is a point of view where you think that *persons do make history* rather than other processes in contrast with *structural history* where you emphasise social and economical developments which *force political decisions* on individuals.
The *'traditional' point of view* would be personalised history (and was very popular in Europe too, already since the Roman Empire in fact) which was challenged after around about 1960 by the French *Annales school* (Braudel and others), a structuralistic view of history.

Since then, in Europe history as it is taught in school has drifted significantly from the personalised to the structuralist type so that persons, political individuals aren't considered as important any more as they once were.
And *my point* was that this development hasn't taken place in America (yet), or at least that school education in America still is rather personalised - which could be seen as *one *reason why we do not learn too much about Lincoln himself here in Europe (besides many others like, first and foremost, that Lincoln was American and therefore was and is much more important to Americans than Europeans).


----------



## ernest_

Outsider said:


> When I went to school, the American Revolution was mentioned as part of the "liberal revolutions" that followed the Enlightenment, but without much depth. As for the American Civil War, I don't remember studying it at all, though I may be forgetful. And speeches -- we don't even learn the speeches of our politicians.



I do remember very well that the American Revolution was an introductory chapter to the French Revolution, actually it was mentioned as a "precedent" of the French Revolution. I do remember that our teacher told us it was the first true liberal revolution, and I thought why there was only one chapter about it then and nine chapters or so dedicated to the French rev, when it should be the other way round.

And I remember in some literature class when a certain lassie stood up and asked the teacher why they didn't explain to us the likes of William Burroughs and Allen Ginsberg, which I didn't know at the time. So it was not only history that was Euro-centric (or rather nation-centric), but literature, arts, etc., as well.


----------



## CrepiIlLupo

In all honesty, as an American I have a hard time recalling much detailed information about Lincoln that I learned in school.  Of course I know about the Gettysburg Address and his famous opening lines, the Emancipation Proclomation (which consequently steals the 13th amendment's credit for abolishing slavery), and his death at the hands of John Wilkes Booth.  I would honestly be surprised if the average American high schooler could go into a considerable amount of detail about the life of Lincoln.

Here, I get the feeling that Lincoln is simply regarded as being a great historical figure in American history and is left at that.  As a disclaimer, I am obviously not a history major nor did I take many history electives in high school.  People who choose to study more history would obviously know more details.

In regards to how much we study French history, the American highlights seem to be Napoleon, Joan of Arc, The French Revolution and France's role in World War II (this is disregarding French literary and artistic history).  

I was surprised to read that South American countries learn so much about U.S. history.... though i'm happy that I learned about the histories of those European countries who had an impact on us directly, I regret not having learned more about, say, Paraguay.


----------



## argentina84

Neither I nor my siblings studied about Lincoln in High School. People don't know much about the USA Revolution here, unless they study History at university.


----------



## raptor

Here in BC, Canada, we weren't taught about any American history unless it ties in with the Canadian one.  We were taught about early colonization of North America, early explorers, and all the Canadian stuff, then some quick skirmishes against the US (where I believe we burned their parliament ).  Also, we talk about interactions between Canada and the US in WWII, and Cold War.

We weren't taught about any presidents except Franklin Roosevelt.  Here, it has to be "Canada, Canada, Canada!!" which is disappointing really.  The first time a course is offered that does not revolve around Canada is History 12 which only covers 20th century history.

I agree with Alex_Murphy: the only things I know about Abraham Lincoln (and most other world history) are what I've heard from books, TV, and so on.


----------



## aleCcowaN

I remember what I learnt at high school:

1st year (age: 13): History = Antiquity, Middle Ages (three hours a week)
2nd year (age: 14): History = from Renaissance, Columbus and Constantinople fall to World War II (three hours a week) The book was about 400 pages; some 9 or 10 refered to USA (colonial and independent) and Mr Lincoln deserved about half a page including the Gettysburg Address, which analysis is a very common written activity.
3rd year (age: 15): History of Argentina (three hours a week)
4th year (age: 16): History of American Institutions until 1810 (one hour a week) The States deserves a few pages
5th year (age: 17): History of American Institutions since 1810 (one hour a week) USA is covered in 20 or 30 pages, mainly to study the origin of their democracy and all the difficulties to adapt it to former Spain and Portugal colonies. The Amendments are covered here.

I know nowadays the study program is much more simplified, so I suppose it is Washington, Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and pay attention while watching television. Franklin may be the thermometer in the medicine cabinet.


----------



## modus.irrealis

raptor said:


> We weren't taught about any presidents except Franklin Roosevelt.  Here, it has to be "Canada, Canada, Canada!!" which is disappointing really.  The first time a course is offered that does not revolve around Canada is History 12 which only covers 20th century history.


When I was in high school here in Ontario, we didn't do much of any history at all, Canadian or otherwise. There were compulsory courses on Canadian history/geography up to Grade 10 but after that there were only electives, although there was an OAC (= Grade 13 basically) course on American history. I didn't take it but I assume that Lincoln would have been an important topic in such a course.



> I agree with Alex_Murphy: the only things I know about Abraham Lincoln (and most other world history) are what I've heard from books, TV, and so on.


The same with me as well.


----------



## Grop

Well I didn't learn either about Lincoln's speeches.

I don't think my history classes focused on speeches: we gave more attention to texts who described things or emitted ideas such as Adam Smith or Karl Marx. Even political texts that I saw at school were generally by writers such as Victor Hugo or Voltaire, not by politicians. From politicians I only remember short quotations.

(I actually studied a few speeches, but that was in English class, and concerned only 20th century speeches).

Actually, we didn't pay much attention to the US civil war (apart from mentionning some causes and consequences).


----------



## FYV

Txell Casas said:


> Hello all,
> I was surprised today in an English class in USA to find that people from lots of countries of Asia, plus Brazil and Mexico, had studied in their schools in their countries about Lincoln and specially they knew about one speech he gave in 1863. In Spain we don't study that and they were very surprised of that.
> I would like to know from people of other countries if they also study Lincoln in their schools as basic knowledge.
> Thanks


Spain has its own great history. I cannot understand why they should learn some other country history so in depth.


----------



## Mjolnir

I don't remember learning anything about Lincoln here in Israel. I think we did cover The American Revolution a bit, but I'm not sure.

Like others have said, everything I know about Lincoln came from watching American TV.


----------



## Vanda

We first knew about Lincoln already in the 5th grade - high school level. To tell the truth this is the time when we have to know by heart  the name of all states and their capitals and all presidents from the USA. Also the name of all countries in the world.
Later in high school we know more details about Lincoln, his famous speech and details about USA history, since its first immigrants from England forming the colonies.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

We study the American Revolution and, to a lesser extent, the American Civil War so Lincoln is obviously mentioned, however we don't study him in depth.


----------



## Etcetera

Txell Casas said:


> I would like to know from people of other countries if they also study Lincoln in their schools as basic knowledge.


Not in Russia. Not in the course of general world history, at least. 
Quite frankly, most my knowledge on American history comes from my English lessons - we had special classes on culture and history of the U.S.


----------



## mirx

Vanda said:


> We first knew about Lincoln already in the 5th grade - high school level. To tell the truth this is the time when we have to know by heart the name of all states and their capitals and all presidents from the USA. Also the name of all countries in the world.
> Later in high school we know more details about Lincoln, his famous speech and details about USA history, since its first immigrants from England forming the colonies.


 
Are you saying Brazilian students have to learn the names of the states and capitald that form the USA?

In México we do hear a bit of Lincoln, the same was we study Musolinni, Franco, Stalin, Napoleon, Hitler, and some other leaders of the world.

I find it hard to believe that a typical Mexican highschool student will know the speech Abraham gave in X year, most of us know is that he was president of the USA, the 1st one I believe.

Regards.


----------



## CrepiIlLupo

He was our sixteenth president.


----------



## Txell Casas

Thanks everybody,
Your answers are in line with what I thought. It seems that even within the countries there are differences.
The speech was certainly the "Gettysburg Address", a short speech given in the Gettysburg Cemetery after one of the biggest battles of the Civil War. Some people of my class had memorized it in their schools (not in the USA)  and the most famous sentence for them was the last one: "...these dead shall not have died in vain; ... ...that government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the earth". 
I studied a lot of history in my school, Catalan history, Spanish history, and most European history. Some of the Asian and American history, too. I don't remember learning any speech. Right now I only remember the exact words of a Catalan politician when he said "Ja sóc aquí", not because we memorize it in school, just because our families still remember.


----------



## CrazyArcher

American history isn't studied here at all, except minor references in context of WW1 and 2. There are university pograms on American History and Culture, but they seem to be the only source of good knowledge of the topic.


----------



## Nanon

ernest_ said:


> I do remember very well that the American Revolution was an introductory chapter to the French Revolution, actually it was mentioned as a "precedent" of the French Revolution. I do remember that our teacher told us it was the first true liberal revolution, and I thought why there was only one chapter about it then and nine chapters or so dedicated to the French rev, when it should be the other way round.



Pretty much like in France for reasons that may seem obvious 
I also remember more about FDR than about Lincoln from my history classes in secondary. But the reason is that the teacher who covered the XIX century in the penultimate year of secondary (première) was a complete disaster. What I learnt about that period was learnt outside school.
There must have had an excerpt of the Gettysburg Address in the history textbook, although I don't remember it. (Quelqu'un a un Mallet-Isaac  SVP ?)


----------



## Aldhameer

In Bosnia we studied A.Lincoln and entire American history alongside with European,Bosnian,Ottoman,Croatian,Serbian,Macedonian,Slovenian,Montenegrin.It's obligatory in all history books of primary school and high school.


----------



## Oletta

In Poland we do Lincoln, we have quite a wide scope of the history of the world included in the curriculum, similarly to what Aldhameer said above. We have quite precise history and geography approach, primary and secondary students must study a lot.


----------



## federicoft

In Italy we study 19th Century history during 11th grade. 
Well, just checked my 11th grade history textbook, which is over 500 pages long, and found it deals with the whole American Civil War in just one page, and there is a single mention of Abraham Lincoln.

Seems like we concentrate more on European History, since 19th Century was a very relevant period for Europe and, even more so, for this country.


----------



## angelicface

Here in Philippines we don't.
We just knew him by name but we don't really study his history.
 His not a part of our history after all.  

take care


----------



## elirlandes

In Ireland, around the age of 14 we studied the "Gettysburg Address" as part of our English class (not history) as an outstanding example of prose.


----------



## Frank78

sokol said:


> *In Austria certainly we learn in school the importance of Abraham Lincoln's presidency especially with reference to the Civil War and the emancipation of African Americans - but you won't ever study any of the speeches given by Lincoln in detail.*
> Not even in university or, to be more precise, only if you're in a lecture which is only concerned with either Lincoln himself or slavery or political speeches.



The same counts for Germany. But wait, later at university I've found out they did't tell us the whole truth at school. The war wasn't started because of the emancipation.
After dealing with the topic in detail my image of him has dramatically changed to the negative.


----------



## mirx

CrepiIlLupo said:


> He was our sixteenth president.


 
Oh, well there you go.


----------



## berndf

I know the Gettysburg address, not by heart but sufficiently well to recognize it when hearing a few words of it. But I didn't learn this as school. Given our history, we aren't very fond of patriotic speeches and generally ignore them.

In school we just learn that he led the Union into the civil war and that under his presidency the slaves where freed which is wrong. The reception of the historical figure is ambivalent. He is praised for having laid the foundations for the abolition of slavery but on the other hand he is seen as responsible for one of the most horrible wars of the nineteenth century.


----------



## Ottilie

Not at all. Moldova is ex-USSR ,I think people here didn't even know his name,and those who do maybe think he was a writer or a limousine  designer.


----------



## COF

Virtually no American history is studied in British schools at the secondary level. Many universities however offer degrees in "American Studies", so that's the closest it gets to any study of the US.


----------



## merquiades

I think unfortunately history classes tend to be based totally around the home country and reflect its points of view and national legends.  In the US we studied Lincoln and the War Between the States almost every year in school.  I even had to memorize the "Gettysburg Address" in 6th grade and recite it to the teacher.  I even remember parts of it. "We have thus far so nobly advanced".  In Spain gone with all of that.  The hero became Alfonso el Sabio and the great war was the Reconquest of the Iberian Peninsula.  Now in France I see the same thing, even more so.  World history is only important in that it affects France.  For example, the ideas of France spurred the American revolution and independence occurred due to French aid. etc. In the US they say pretty much the opposite.....
Anyway... didn't someone say, every country has its own prophet.  Well, Lincoln is America's.


----------



## WhoSoyEu

mirx said:


> Are you saying Brazilian students have to learn the names of the states and capitald that form the USA?
> 
> In México we do hear a bit of Lincoln, the same was we study Musolinni, Franco, Stalin, Napoleon, Hitler, and some other leaders of the world.
> 
> I find it hard to believe that a typical Mexican highschool student will know the speech Abraham gave in X year, most of us know is that he was president of the USA, the 1st one I believe.
> 
> Regards.


Probably we in Brazil know more american history than most Americans.


----------



## sound shift

I don't recall studying Lincoln, though I studied history. That was before we had something called the "National Curriculum". Perhaps Lincoln is part of that, but I don't think history is a compulsory subject for every year of secondary school, so it's possible that Lincoln is only studied by those who opt to continue with history. It may depend on the syllabus that's in place at a given moment.


----------



## The Machine of Zhu

To be honest, I'm not sure. I had American History & Culture (I &II) in college. It was quite an extensive course. History taught in 'high school' and even in universities, however, is usually very eurocentric, I daresay western-eurocentric.


----------



## Hakro

Txell Casas said:


> I would like to know from people of other countries if they also study Lincoln in their schools as basic knowledge


In school I never learned much about Lincoln but of course I knew that  Lincoln was the top brand of Ford Motor Company. In those days Lincoln  was one of my favourites as Lincoln cars won 1-2-3-4 in the first  Carrera Panamericana México in 1953, and a similar car used to park just  around the corner where I lived in Helsinki.


----------



## Mirlo

We really do not study American History in Panama, but we hear about it due to the Panama Canal. So we hear about Lincoln and other presidents....I think that the most popular president was Theodore Roosevelt :


> Under President Theodore Roosevelt, the United States would buy out the French equipment and take over the excavations on May 4,1904. The U.S. had recently helped Panama gain its independence from Colombia, which figured prominently in the U.S. building of the Panama Canal. As a result of the help they received, Panama awarded the United States full control of the Panama Canal, and the Panama Canal Zone. John Frank Stevens was Chief Engineer of the project from 1905-1907


----------



## salvador_1_99

Txell Casas said:


> Hello all,
> I was surprised today in an English class in USA to find that people from lots of countries of Asia, plus Brazil and Mexico, had studied in their schools in their countries about Lincoln and specially they knew about one speech he gave in 1863. In Spain we don't study that and they were very surprised of that.
> I would like to know from people of other countries if they also study Lincoln in their schools as basic knowledge.
> 
> Thanks


 
 Well I am from the center of mexico near distrito federal I attended to public schools and I remember  Lincon was mentioned a couple of times first in primary and then in high school in "universal history" subject but we didnt dig deeper  I only remember he was mentioned as you said as  an important president for the USA, and I more vaguely  remember my teachers saying he made a speech, most of the history is taught in México is about mexican independence and mexican revolution, I think because of the  closeness I get to know more about USA than southamerica history (not that it is taught in schools, just by chance because geographical closeness)

Although it could be slightly different in the border of mexico with USA since Mexicans are more in touch with americans or travel to USA often.


----------



## Porteño

It's been quite a while since I was at school in the UK, but to the best of my memory, we were taught absolutely nothing about US history other than the Boston Tea Party, of course. Our curriculum covered the period from 1485-1914 and the First and Second World Wars (the latter having just ended) were given about half a page at the end. 'The First World War lasted from 1914-1918 and the Second World War began in 1939 and ended in 1945 (in Europe).' We had to memorise the list of Kings and Queens, but the main part dealt generally with those who had had the greatest influence, William I, Henry V and VIII, Elizabeth I and Victoria; the remainder being given fairly short shrift. Otherwise, the main focus was on the Cromwellian period, the Industrial Revolution and the growth of the Empire (which we still had at the time) - Clive of India, Lawrence of Arabia and Cecil Rhodes being cited as the principal builders. An interesting sideline of the curriculum was that in English Language, we also studied histroical texts, such as Lord Macaulay's '_History of England_', which was a masterpiece in the use of vocabulary.


----------

