8 ms·

One of the best Radiolab episodes I've heard was Mau Mau[1], which chronicled the uncovering of thousands of documents pertaining to the British Empire in Kenya

• agumonkey 9y ago
  off-topic opportunity: should history be taught in school ? it's a weird blend of nationalist myth, folklore, ignorant (or not) lies and revisionnism. ps: people I didn't mean to stay ignorant, but hinting at rethinking what we're teaching. History is extremely subtle and trimmed far too much for kids (hence the bad blend I described above).
  • alsetmusic 9y ago
    Absolutely. It should be taught because knowing history informs our present and future decisions. At the same time, we should educate young people on the realities of one-sided history and the constantly evolving landscape of history. Teach kids to seek more multiple sources and interpretations.
    • agumonkey 9y ago
      That's the kind of idea I was trying to raise in comments. Criticizing the state of education doesn't mean wishing for no education.
  • wallace_f 9y ago
    Just a thought: growing up I had moved around the country a bit, and perhaps this led me to be introduced to wildly different ideas about history. For example, I was taught both the States Rights and the Slavery motives of the civil war, in both primary school and in Uni! Another: My history texts taught me to be once quite strongly of the belief that the atomic bombings of Japan were necessary, and even saved lives, until a nice old prof in uni showed me that Eisenhower and many military leaders either strongly condemned it, pointing that the Japanese were already negotiating surrender, or said it be at least not dropped on urban population centres, as there was already a complete naval blockade and they had no ability to continue the war.
    • notzorbo3 9y ago
      > My history texts taught me to be once quite strongly of the belief that the atomic bombings of Japan were necessary, and even saved lives So that's where that attitude / excuse comes from whenever I talk to americans about the bombings of Japan?! Is that literally taught in history classes? It always seemed to me like a statement made by an indoctrinated mind. It was nuclear bombs used on civilians in two densely populated cities. How can people spin that into something good?
      • hiram112 9y ago
        The typical narrative is that millions of American and Japanese lives would have been lost fighting for the home islands. The Japanese were pretty intent on dying for the cause if their leadership chose to do so. The bit left out in most history books is the fact that the atomic bomb was used not to destroy Japanese cities but instead to demonstrate to the Soviets, who by an earlier treaty, had declared war on Japan and were invading from the North, that the US could oppose them in both Japan and Europe. The US didn't really need to use atomic weapons for any tactical reason. Fire bombing had already proven that a city could be wiped out with traditional ordinance.
        • wallace_f 9y ago
          This is true. What's more is that Hirohito, when asked about terms of surrender, said that he would That said, "there was no reason to use that awful thing" as Eisenhower said. Truman was "itching to use the bomb" to deter the Soviets in Europe and Asia. There wasn't any reason for a land invasion and military leaders in the US echoed this, and they were already defeated and going through conditions of surrender. Hirohito was a really bad guy, and stubbornly refused any terms that would have him step down. Miscommunication then led to the bomb drop, which few know. If you want to know more about this Google the 'Mokusatsu incident.' Then in a massive miscarriage lf justice, Hirohito remained royalty and Tojo was martyred as "the bad guy."
  • domparise 9y ago
    It may be biased, but the alternative, having no formal history lessons, is far worse. At the very least it provides a shared cultural identity, and presents lessons learned from the past. Hopefully moving forward we won't have to worry so much about the revisionism. With everything being documented the internet, we most likely will just have to content with sifting through it all to find the truth.
    • dfsegoat 9y ago
      >> It may be biased, but the alternative, having no formal history lessons, is far worse. 110%. In America, I would say we ought to be teaching history as fast as possible: We are a Republic of immigrants, fighting for the preservation of an idea - The Constitution of the United States of America. By the way, that constitution happens to make us all equal by default. That's a pretty important lesson for us here to remember in these divisive political times.
    • notzorbo3 9y ago
      > the alternative, having no formal history lessons, is far worse It depends. If the history lessons are strongly indoctrinating, then it's better not to have them. How many of the very good principles of Communism are being dismissed because people have been taught that communism == the Russian implementation of it?
  • eradicatethots 9y ago
    It has those things and if that’s where he conversation starts, it’s good. It’s better than no conversation at all. Hiding things is not the answer.
  • forapurpose 9y ago
    I strongly disagree: It is not nearly true that all knowledge, including all history, is ideological and false. All knowledge is biased to some degree, just like all people are dishonest to some degree - but to say you cannot trust anyone at all or that everyone is equally trustworthy would plainly be a misapprehension of reality. A good education teaches people to treat knowledge skeptically and develop judgment about it, but to dismiss it all is as ignorant as believing it all. As someone once said about IT security, 'there is no wisdom in trusting no one'. I'll add the controversial (on HN) statement that such skill is what a liberal arts education teaches, and I believe it is the most valuable skill to learn.
  • ikiris 9y ago
    If you don't learn history there's a huge risk you'll wind up believing republicans
  • notzorbo3 9y ago
    Maybe we should have our worst historical enemies write our history textbooks for us.
    • agumonkey 9y ago
      That's a very adversarial view of the world. Maybe we could: - teach our more kids and adults to be healthier - teach them to be more than physically fit (as in master of slow and/or fast sport) - teach them to be wise about society, groups and empathy - teach them to be stronger emotionally It's probably possible to have a culture that is strong yet friendly to foreigners, traits that reinforce themselves because you don't fear.
• narrator 9y ago
  It's lucky the American Revolution happened in 1776 before the British had all that industrial might to suppress rebellions that they used in the Boer war and their other brutal colonial repressions.
  • forapurpose 9y ago
    There are plenty of far more brutal methods of suppression used long before the Industrial Revolution, unfortunately.
  • psergeant 9y ago
    It gave the Americans the chance to use it on the native Americans. The first concentration camps were American, not British.
    • wavefunction 9y ago
      The Romans beat the Americans to the punch by millennia.
  • Chris2048 9y ago
    Not so lucky for Black slaves in America: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833 Instead they would need to wait until 1865, 33-23 years later..
• smnrchrds 9y ago
  On a similar note, most Iranians blame the British, who were occupying the country at the time, for the Persian famine of 1917–1919. It is by some accounts estimated that up to half the population died in the famine, while the British were using the agricultural output for their war efforts and enacting policies that made the situation worse. Its portrayal in Iran is like a more aggravated version of the Irish famine. However, outside of Iran few believe this accounts, precisely because there are few written documents available about what went on during the famine and what role, if any, the British government had in it. If the documents were released, we would have a definite answer after a century, but I don't think they will be declassified and released anytime soon.
  • awakeasleep 9y ago
    something like that would really mess with the current narrative the west uses to explain Iran
  • jwdunne 9y ago
    This isn't a stretch to believe. I'm British too. We did something similar with India. We also allowed the Irish famine to happen too. History does say we were not a very kind empire - causing famine was not beyond us.
    • satya71 9y ago
      I was under the impression that British schools still teach that colonies actually benefited from British occupation. Looks like you went out of the way to learn the reality. Kudos!
      • andy_ppp 9y ago
        It’s just not mentioned anymore... at least in state schools. We will look back at the American empire just as fondly I’m sure.
      • asveikau 9y ago
        At some point, maybe ten years ago, I realized that with the internet today it's sometimes incredibly easy to see and expose national biases... One of the tricks I came up with back then: Look up any Wikipedia article on US involvement in Latin America. Change the language from English to Spanish. Same topic. Sometimes vastly different reality.
• rgrieselhuber 9y ago
  This is a very subtle and well-crafted comment. I'll probably get downvotes for saying this but there is a lot written between the lines here.
• retox 9y ago
  Top rated comment with nothing to do with the topic. Thanks dang