3 ms·
Some of this is simply what’s considered germane to modern survival vs not. The information about imperial atrocities (whether English, Persian, Chinese, Japane
by aksss 3y ago
Some of this is simply what’s considered germane to modern survival vs not. The information about imperial atrocities (whether English, Persian, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, Powhatan, etc) is there for the interested, but in a child’s limited day of learning it’s probably not the most important thing to dwell on so much as the abstract lessons with a few concrete examples (in the US, the holocaust and slavery generally serve).
This is a reflection of brevity for efficiency but bias has certainly played a part in it. I think that’s fading to the point of absurdity though. “Land acknowledgement” proclamations at US events being a case in point. Incorporating indigenous wisdom gets a lot of focus in my corner of the US relative to its practical value and traceable legitimacy. Critical views of history, from Zinn to The 1619 Project are by no means in short supply. This has so much influence and currency on historical interpretation today that the side effect of “history without presentism” seems exceptional these days. This consequence is deleterious rather than additive to the study of history, and far apart from the goal of emphasizing “untold histories”.
I would propose that what most consider “untold history” (leaving revisionist histories and counterfactuals aside) is really just a rabbit hole of fascinating nerdom rather than a conspiracy. For example, I think more people should appreciate details of North American industrialization in the 19th century. I fully recognize that most people don’t know the interesting details not because the knowledge is controlled by gatekeepers but because most people are just aren’t as interested in it as me. Should they be? Of course! But if you’re into history you’ll always be stunned by the things people don’t know that you imagine to be common knowledge (or be incensed that it’s not). People have lives though, and for most people living in the present, the past is deprioritized. It’s probably helped us as a species.
- AndrewKemendo 3y agoThat still does not solve the problem of having a coherent and accurate narrative history. you’re simply acknowledging that it was cherry picked and managed, and making the point that it’s required as a practicality does not in anyway excuse or correct the bias. It is not by accident that these things are not taught, where I disagree is that it has not been intentionally biased. We know for a fact that it has been intentionally biased and the entire purpose of the daughters of the confederacy in their drive-through the south to rename schools and erect monuments, explicitly to maintain racist history is unambiguous. The fact that this remains, albeit it is now being undone slowly, is exemplary of my point. It is insufficient for these significant cultural points to be casually mentioned, as opposed to intentionally acknowledged such that we can make reparations. If your position is that these things do not have remaining cultural impacts well, I don’t know what else to tell you other than that’s incorrect and again is a function of the specificity for which this history is taught. Ruby Bridges is still alive today and there are women living today who couldn’t vote. This wasn’t that long ago.
- ajb 3y agoWhy should we be sure that a narrative of history exists, that is both coherent and accurate? I'm not convinced that human history is coherent. Maybe you are a theist, but for those of us that are not, there is no reason to believe that human history can fit neatly into any particular narrative. Any story we tell about it will necessarily be partial and biased.