6 ms·

History is extremely complex and nuanced, that is the problem. It literally encompasses everything that ever happened. So anything you can say about history is

by olavk 8y ago

History is extremely complex and nuanced, that is the problem. It literally encompasses everything that ever happened. So anything you can say about history is inherently an oversimplification with ignores a lot of possible angles and voices and narratives. Just deciding what goes into a textbook in inherently political, even if everything stated in the book are objective truths.

m_mueller 8y ago
The scientific way of looking at the world has never been, and potentially will never be, absolutely true, as in a correct model that explains reality in all its facets. I do however disagree with your position in one decisive way: The scientific method demands that any stated fact is falsifiable, and that already falsified facts are not used again as a basis for further theories. Once it has been shown that flat earth is false, it cannot simply be said to be "a different opinion" and that we have no right to stop its further propagation. Nothing is provenly true, but we know what's false, anything else is still up for discussion. So, once it has been shown with reasonable documentation that things like Ausschwitz or Nanking or Japanese internment in the US happened, it is not up to "politics" to make it part of history or not. Sure, it can be rationalized and interpreted in different ways, but that doesn't change any of the facts, as long as there is not a solid disprove of these events that can deal with all the evidence that supports them. Edit: The statement that contents are "political" is a classic unfalsifiable claim, thus is an invalid argument. Evidence demands counter-evidence.
- olavk 8y ago
  We can agree that the earth is not flat, but I don't think this is really the issue. The article mentions the question whether the Japanese internement is treated in single sentence, or on multiple pages with pictures, personal accounts etc. Stating it is "a fact" does not really help you decide which approach is appropriate for an US history textbook. Yeah we can agree that textbooks should not make objectively false statements, but that is not really the difficult part.
candiodari 8y ago
The issue is that there are narratives that are 99% true (like the West's version of the Tiananmen massacre, or the Holocaust/WW2), and narratives that are 1% true, and deliberate misleading (like China's version, and Nazi's or Iran's version of the Holocaust/WW2) People don't want to own to what they did. Not individual criminals, not states, not governments, not religions. Especially not when there's financial consequences. (but the fact that western governments also hide disgusting acts they committed does not change the fact that there is a serious scale difference)
- olavk 8y ago
  The question is not whether US history books should relay the Nazi narrative of WWII or a western narrative. The question is which western narrative. There is a million ways of telling the story about WWII even while remaining factual, by selecting, framing, emphasizing different aspects etc. Just as an example, the western narrative during the cold war tended (for obvious reasons) to downplay the role of the eastern front and the USSR. This in turn made it hard to explain what Hitler was even trying to achieve with the war.
  - LyndsySimon 8y ago
    > This in turn made it hard to explain what Hitler was even trying to achieve with the war. Perhaps ironically, the best way to understand what Nazi Germany was trying to accomplish is to read what they wrote about it - which is pretty much tantamount to "teaching the Nazi narrative," isn't it? WW2 looked very different from the perspective of each state actor. It even looked substantially different to a common soldier or citizen of each state than it did to the state's leadership. The Nazi leadership wanted expansion of the German state to include all of Europe. Most of the Nazi leadership wanted to exterminate "undesirables" within the borders of that state as well - but to the German citizen drafted into the Heer in 1942, it was about keeping the Communists at bay, and as the war wore on, about keeping the advancing Red Army from raping and pillaging what they saw as their homeland. Honestly, I don't know how we should teach it as a society. I know how I teach my kids - I give the best overview I can of the motives of each major state actor and then reference individual accounts of people living under the regime. I do my best not to assign right or wrong to their actions, excepting things that are obviously morally repugnant like the Holocaust, the Holodomor, the actions of Unit 731, and the Rape of Nanking.

by olavk 8y ago

m_mueller 8y ago

The scientific way of looking at the world has never been, and potentially will never be, absolutely true, as in a correct model that explains reality in all its facets. I do however disagree with your position in one decisive way: The scientific method demands that any stated fact is falsifiable, and that already falsified facts are not used again as a basis for further theories. Once it has been shown that flat earth is false, it cannot simply be said to be "a different opinion" and that we have no right to stop its further propagation. Nothing is provenly true, but we know what's false, anything else is still up for discussion. So, once it has been shown with reasonable documentation that things like Ausschwitz or Nanking or Japanese internment in the US happened, it is not up to "politics" to make it part of history or not. Sure, it can be rationalized and interpreted in different ways, but that doesn't change any of the facts, as long as there is not a solid disprove of these events that can deal with all the evidence that supports them. Edit: The statement that contents are "political" is a classic unfalsifiable claim, thus is an invalid argument. Evidence demands counter-evidence.

olavk 8y ago
We can agree that the earth is not flat, but I don't think this is really the issue. The article mentions the question whether the Japanese internement is treated in single sentence, or on multiple pages with pictures, personal accounts etc. Stating it is "a fact" does not really help you decide which approach is appropriate for an US history textbook. Yeah we can agree that textbooks should not make objectively false statements, but that is not really the difficult part.

candiodari 8y ago

The issue is that there are narratives that are 99% true (like the West's version of the Tiananmen massacre, or the Holocaust/WW2), and narratives that are 1% true, and deliberate misleading (like China's version, and Nazi's or Iran's version of the Holocaust/WW2) People don't want to own to what they did. Not individual criminals, not states, not governments, not religions. Especially not when there's financial consequences. (but the fact that western governments also hide disgusting acts they committed does not change the fact that there is a serious scale difference)

olavk 8y ago
The question is not whether US history books should relay the Nazi narrative of WWII or a western narrative. The question is which western narrative. There is a million ways of telling the story about WWII even while remaining factual, by selecting, framing, emphasizing different aspects etc. Just as an example, the western narrative during the cold war tended (for obvious reasons) to downplay the role of the eastern front and the USSR. This in turn made it hard to explain what Hitler was even trying to achieve with the war.
- LyndsySimon 8y ago
  > This in turn made it hard to explain what Hitler was even trying to achieve with the war. Perhaps ironically, the best way to understand what Nazi Germany was trying to accomplish is to read what they wrote about it - which is pretty much tantamount to "teaching the Nazi narrative," isn't it? WW2 looked very different from the perspective of each state actor. It even looked substantially different to a common soldier or citizen of each state than it did to the state's leadership. The Nazi leadership wanted expansion of the German state to include all of Europe. Most of the Nazi leadership wanted to exterminate "undesirables" within the borders of that state as well - but to the German citizen drafted into the Heer in 1942, it was about keeping the Communists at bay, and as the war wore on, about keeping the advancing Red Army from raping and pillaging what they saw as their homeland. Honestly, I don't know how we should teach it as a society. I know how I teach my kids - I give the best overview I can of the motives of each major state actor and then reference individual accounts of people living under the regime. I do my best not to assign right or wrong to their actions, excepting things that are obviously morally repugnant like the Holocaust, the Holodomor, the actions of Unit 731, and the Rape of Nanking.