4 ms·

I'm not trying to be glib. In America the Soviet contribution to killing the Nazis is almost entirely written out of mandatory education so I think it's often r

by ixtli 9y ago

I'm not trying to be glib. In America the Soviet contribution to killing the Nazis is almost entirely written out of mandatory education so I think it's often relevant in American-heavy discussions to point it out. Also, I recall hearing a talk about how one of the effects of post-WW2 soviet communism on western/northern europe was the creation of lots of social welfare programs. (Sadly I'm not in a place where I can source this but I could have sworn it was a talk by Michael Parenti.) The reason I bring this up is because I think it's disingenuous to claim that if it hadn't been for Britain and the US that France would today resemble the Balkans or Ukraine. What we typically associate with "post-communist bloc" countries happened far later when the USSR fell apart. It's a big jump to say that places like Britain would have become part of then suffered under Soviet Communism.

ZephyrP 9y ago
In the past, I have actually about the historical education of several people who went to school between 1985-2009 and no one I've met has had any education of history past reconstruction covered in primary & secondary education (outside of Civil Rights-era, which is independently covered). Even if you are one of the ~1% of APAM students it's spoken about in broad terms and hazy generalities after Teapot Dome (unless you count history of Baseball, which somehow is somewhat inexplicably regarded as a critical component of America history). I find this interesting because many Americans broadly understand the succession of events leading up to and constituting WWII. On the other hand, the topics that are covered to death are barely recalled: The Revolutionary War? Washington fought that one. Civil War? Harper's Ferry & Manassas? 1812? "The time we fought the Canadians".
walshemj 9y ago
That thesis is the western government needed to show that they looked after their populations better that the WP did.

by ixtli 9y ago

ZephyrP 9y ago

In the past, I have actually about the historical education of several people who went to school between 1985-2009 and no one I've met has had any education of history past reconstruction covered in primary & secondary education (outside of Civil Rights-era, which is independently covered). Even if you are one of the ~1% of APAM students it's spoken about in broad terms and hazy generalities after Teapot Dome (unless you count history of Baseball, which somehow is somewhat inexplicably regarded as a critical component of America history). I find this interesting because many Americans broadly understand the succession of events leading up to and constituting WWII. On the other hand, the topics that are covered to death are barely recalled: The Revolutionary War? Washington fought that one. Civil War? Harper's Ferry & Manassas? 1812? "The time we fought the Canadians".

walshemj 9y ago

That thesis is the western government needed to show that they looked after their populations better that the WP did.