America's forgotten war

[snopes]

For most people, the French and Indian War is one of those distant, foggy, inscrutable, eye-crossing wars that seem to exist primarily as fodder for history textbooks written to bore the bejabbers out of sixth-graders. Most of us know only that it happened sometime before the American Revolution and involved the French, and possibly the last of the Mohicans.

But this may change. The Civil War has always been popular, the Revolution has been on a hot streak, and now it may be the French and Indian War's turn.

http://www.calendarlive.com/gallerie...,1116703.story

[PatYoung]

There are a number of excellent French and Indian War sites in NY. The two most popular are Fort Niagara, about twenty minutes north of the Falls, and Ft. Ticondaroga, which just about every male NYer of a certain age visited when they were young.

[RainyDaze]

The article asks "who won" and the answer seems fairly obvious. The colonists won. The French lost. The Indians, or Native Americans if you prefer, lost. The British won the war but lost the colonies soon after. Is the Seven Years War/French & Indian War really as obscure as the article implies?

[RealityChuck]

It's ususally glossed over in American history courses as they aim for the Revolution. It gets a paragraph or two in textbooks. Basically, it had little effect, and what little it did was concentrated in the Northeast US.

It's probably covered less than the Spanish-American War and is on a par with the Mexican War as far as basic American history is concerned.

[Grand Illusion]

My son, 15, had had his brains riddled with Revolutionary and Civil War history throughout his academic career. (For some reason, he gets American history over and over in each succeesing year, but they don't teach much of anything about world history, go figure). However, he had never heard of the F&I War when I mentioned it to him. He might have heard the term once, but could tell me nothing about it. When I was in school, we probably had a one day lecture on it and one or two test questions.

Also reported tardy or missing in schools: the War of 1812.

(Why do Americans delimit our history with wars? "Semester 1: Revolutionary War till Civil War. Semester 2: Civil War thru WWII." Do other countries do that?)

[Johnny Slick]

Originally Posted by RealityChuck

It's ususally glossed over in American history courses as they aim for the Revolution. It gets a paragraph or two in textbooks. Basically, it had little effect, and what little it did was concentrated in the Northeast US.

It's probably covered less than the Spanish-American War and is on a par with the Mexican War as far as basic American history is concerned.

It's definitely not covered but to say it had "little effect" is hogwash. The French and Indian War led directly, as in A causing B, to the American Revolution. Many of the taxes imposed on the colonists were to fund troops to protect the colonists from the French and Indians, and many other things they did riled the colonists so much that we have provisions against them in our Constitution (the 2nd Amendment, the Amendment about the government not being able to force troops to sleep in your house). Also, Washington was made by the French and Indian War; granted that he wasn't a very good officer in it.

[Meka]

Originally Posted by Grand Illusion

Why do Americans delimit our history with wars? "Semester 1: Revolutionary War till Civil War. Semester 2: Civil War thru WWII." Do other countries do that?

While I have no idea whether other countries follow similar practices with their history, I can think of a few reasons why it's done for American History.

First off, unlike many other possible delineations of history, wars typically have very well-defined starting and ending dates. World War II, for example, can be defined by dates such as 9/1/1939, 12/7/1941, 5/8/1945, and 9/2/1945. Compare that to teaching a course bounded by, say, the Industrial Revolution, where there are a number of possible interpretations as to beginning and end, or by an arbitrarily chosen date, which could have either no relavence to the historical topic or be supremely inconvenient.

Secondly, wars are usually momentous events within a nation's history. Take the examples you gave - a common breakdown of American history. The Revolutionary War (with which the French and Indian War is often lumped in) marks the formal separation of the colonies from British rule. The Civil War marks the coming to a head of a number of divisive issues between North and South, as well as the planting of the seed that eventually led to the Civil Rights movement. World War II marks the emergence of the US as a world superpower, and the division between East and West that resulted colored world events for the next fifty years.

It's kind of a sad commentary on history, but it's frequently delineated by wars simply because major wars have the most impact on it.

[mediadave]

The article asks "who won" and the answer seems fairly obvious. The colonists won. The French lost. The Indians, or Native Americans if you prefer, lost. The British won the war but lost the colonies soon after. Is the Seven Years War/French & Indian War really as obscure as the article implies?

Actually, i'd say the Indian's (or native americans) won. The early british disasters at Mononghaela and the Ohio frontier showed that to win a war in the wilderness you had to have indian allies, and for the rest of the war the British gave into practically every Indian demand to get them on their side. (at least the indians of the covenant chain). At the 1758 treaty of easton the 6 Nations won a treaty of limitation with the British - securing their borders, and the Penn's had to return the land they had purchased across the Allghenies to the Delaware and other Ohio tribes. This was made 'permanent' in the 1763 royal proclamation, that essentially banned White settlement across the Allghenies.

Of course, a few years later when the US broke away the Indians lost all these victories, but i find it interesting that the 1763 Royal proclamation was one of the main gripes American's had with the crown, especially in Virginia and pennsylvania.

It's ususally glossed over in American history courses as they aim for the Revolution. It gets a paragraph or two in textbooks. Basically, it had little effect, and what little it did was concentrated in the Northeast US.

Well, it lost France Canada. And without an evil papist French enemy sitting on their northern and western border, the American's didn't need all those expensive uncivil Redcoats. If Canada was still french, especially if they had 'won' the Ohio, i doubt the Americans would have rebelled. And if they had, they certainly couldn't have expanded west.

[ASL]

Originally Posted by mediadave

Actually, i'd say the Indian's (or native americans) won ... Of course, a few years later when the US broke away the Indians lost all these victories, but i find it interesting that the 1763 Royal proclamation was one of the main gripes American's had with the crown, especially in Virginia and pennsylvania.

So, in other words, the Indians (like the British) lost. The same war that lost the British some of it's colonies cost the Indians their last barrier against the Americans with the Revolution.

I also think the aside in the article about the Indians holding the "balance of power" is rather ridiculous. An important factor in that war, the wars that came before, and several wars that followed? Yes. The decisive factor? No. The French held the majority of Indian allies and whether the author of the OP is willing to admit it or not, they (the French) clearly lost the war.

[Delta-V]

There are plenty of other 'forgotten wars' in US history. The Mexican-American War, the Allied Expeditions to Northern Russia and Siberia, etc.

[Malruhn]

My eighth grade daughter was going over some history stuff, and she mentioned the "Proclamation Act". When I asked why the Act was enacted, she just looked at me like I was an alien and said, "The French and Indian war, daddy, jeez!"

Maybe it isn't as forgotten as I had thought.

[matches]

What surprises me most is that we still call this the French and Indian war.

Shouldn't this be the Franco Native American War?

[OptimusShr]

We did not go over the French Indian war in school. We did however go over Mexican-American war and 1812. Both of those were done in a day or two however.

[Nick Theodorakis]

Originally Posted by matches

...Shouldn't this be the Franco Native American War?

That sounds like it should be a fight between Spaghetti-O's and pemmican.

Nick

[Johnny Slick]

Originally Posted by First of Two

I've heard that it should be called an extended front of the Seven Year's War in Europe, and I've even heard some historians say that it should properly be called "World War I." (Making WWI into WWII, and so on)

I live only a few miles from where the first significant shots of the American Front of this war took place - Jumonville, and Fort Necessity - so it's probably more emphasized in my area than others.

Probably one of the most interesting aftereffects of the war was the creation of what would later become the "Cajun" community of New Orleans.

That and Canada! Although you're right; New Orleans is way more interesting than Canada.

[DawnStorm]

Originally Posted by Nick Theodorakis

That sounds like it should be a fight between Spaghetti-O's and pemmican.

Nick

Uh-oh
My husband once claimed that the French and Indian War was actually a world war.

[Mama Duck]

Originally Posted by First of Two

Probably one of the most interesting aftereffects of the war was the creation of what would later become the "Cajun" community of New Orleans.

Non-minor nitpick. New Orleans is Creole. South Louisiana is heavily Cajun. Lafayette maybe the large Cajun community you're thinking of. But it is not New Orleans. It's Creole. Second New Orleans started being settled by 1700, a few years before the French and Indian War and well before the War of 1812. The first traceable claims to New Orleans date to 1718. Accessible cite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Orleans

Originally Posted by First of Two

I've heard that it should be called an extended front of the Seven Year's War in Europe, and I've even heard some historians say that it should properly be called "World War I." (Making WWI into WWII, and so on)

I live only a few miles from where the first significant shots of the American Front of this war took place - Jumonville, and Fort Necessity - so it's probably more emphasized in my area than others.

Definitely more emphasized than in the area around Fort Not-Really-All-That-Needed.

(I got it... )

[Silas Sparkhammer]

Originally Posted by DawnStorm

Uh-oh
My husband once claimed that the French and Indian War was actually a world war.

That's not an unreasonable notion, and has been suggested by other historians. It certainly was a lot wider than just North America. Another good candidate for a "World War" are the Napoleonic Wars, which saw actions on every continent except Australia, and every sea except the circumpolar seas.

Silas

[WildaBeast]

Originally Posted by Delta-V

There are plenty of other 'forgotten wars' in US history. The Mexican-American War, the Allied Expeditions to Northern Russia and Siberia, etc.

When I saw the title of this thread I thought it was going to be about the Korean War. Apparently I forgot about the French and Indian War.