8 ms·

I went to school in the UK. Unsurprisingly, I don't think the Irish or Bengal famines were mentioned. In fact the whole British imperial project was largely glo

I went to school in the UK. Unsurprisingly, I don't think the Irish or Bengal famines were mentioned. In fact the whole British imperial project was largely glossed over. But lots of coverge of the Romans, Vikings, Normans, the black death and the two World Wars. The Belgians, the Dutch, the Germans, the Portuguese, the Italians and the Spanish also did horrible things during their colonial periods. Are these taught a schools in these countries? Genuine question - I'm curious.

mtmail 2y ago
In Germany the colonial period is taught, for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Conference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Conference and global maps. The German colonies are hardly mentioned, Germany lost them all 100 years ago, and I don't think many Germans could name the countries/regions even. The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_Wars ("systematic extermination of native peoples") isn't taught.
- hackandthink 2y ago
  The largest german colonial project was based on starving millions of people in Eastern Europe mostly Russians. I did not hear about in school. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_Plan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_Plan
  - dmichulke 2y ago
    I wasn't aware of this exact plan either, but to the defense of my history teacher / curriculum: It was made very clear that millions of civilians died (even when not counting the concentration camps) due to the war of extermination (Vernichtungskrieg)
    - hackandthink 2y ago
      I guess it depends on the decade and the Bundesland. In the 80s, the Wehrmacht was still presented as a morally decent army. That changed in the 90s, partly due to the Wehrmacht exhibition. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wehrmachtsausstellung https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wehrmachtsausstellung
- immibis 2y ago
  Non-German in Germany. I get the impression that everyone knows that one holocaust very shamefully, but not any of the other ones. Or the one that's happening right now. (In fact, I could get deported for this comment if the police had nothing better to do. Oh well.) And in New Zealand they also didn't teach us about the way our ancestors holocausted the Māori. Holocausts happen with alarming regularly in history, and the side doing one usually ends up winning, except, you know, that one time. I wish I understood what factors make people so unable to reason about them or even acknowledge them. Business as usual bias? Ego defense? I think the German teaching that there was only one and there will never be another falls under denial. The way you can't talk about Palestine in Germany feels like the way you can't talk about Hacker News moderation on Hacker News, except, you know, the life and death of about 6 million Muslims are at stake.
ggm 2y ago
I went to school in Scotland 65-78 and it was mentioned, studied extensively, as was British colonialism and the post war independence movement. Perhaps Scots education ran to a different agenda to the English one. (the Scots diaspora as a result of Land clearances, and the Irish independence struggle and its links (and opposition) to Scots Protestantism and Irish migration to the mainland might have driven this. We have both Irish independence fights at football matches and orange order parades)
- _2d30 2y ago
  My experience in America is largely one of the following: American person on social media (and, yes, I would claim HN is social media) claims "They never taught us this in school!!!" with many agreeing emphatically. ... and 90+% of the time I remember specifically being taught it. Most people don't remember much of their educations.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    In the US there are large regional differences in what is taught, especially when it comes to history topics. So some of the difference might be that your state had a more comprehensive approach to history than the commenters' states. But yes, most people have a really bad memory of what's taught in school (and that probably isn't entirely their fault, the system clearly doesn't lead to sticky knowledge).
    - ggm 2y ago
      The scots educational curriculum is sufficiently different to the English that I had significant difficulty at (an English) University, because of assumptions about what was learned. Also, time changes things. I did school during a period where school history was in ferment and the teacher said at some points we were learning a new curriculum which rejected "great men of history" theory and focussed on mass movements. I suspect after Thatcher this was revised, it was almost overtly marxist. The textbooks on post colonialism were pretty clear. I hasten to add I had no problem with this, and I read "the 18th Brumaire of Louis Buonaparte" as revision for the history exam in the library, with much pleasure. This was because we'd done a lot on the revolutions across Europe in 1848. Strangely we did very little on Chartism. When I went to uni I found out this was a really active field of study, especially in the midlands because so many Chartist pamphlets are held by places like Leeds university, the working class towns. Maybe thats why Scots History ignored it: it was a south of the border story! If they'd done the emergence of the British Labour party I bet we'd have had a lot given the origins of Labour in Scotland, and the Red Clyde story. That was probably done in year 12 and I left school early to go work in a Marine Biology lab. I probably remember this because I enjoyed it. A lot of history doesn't excite everyone, perhaps I was lucky. I am buggered if I can remember the Maths, which isn't very helpful given I work in CS. Like Arnold Rimmer in "Red Dwarf" I am acceptably meh at colouring in the crinkly bits in Geography but not much else.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
t-3 2y ago
In the US, we covered a lot of old world colonial abuses in AP Euro and World History, but they are only briefly mentioned in regular courses. Irish and Armenian genocides were given special focus, probably mostly due to the demographics of the area I grew up in. US and Eurocolonial treatment of the Native Americans was covered extensively in regular courses though, often alongside and explicitly compared to the Holocaust which is also covered extensively.
- analog31 2y ago
  I'm curious, how old are you if I may ask? I'm 61, and of these things, only the Holocaust and the failure of the Soviet Union were covered.
  - t-3 2y ago
    34.
    - analog31 2y ago
      Thanks. I should also note that my kids learned about those things in school.
  - jjayj 2y ago
    Just to add some (unprovoked) additional info here: I'm a 26 year old Canadian. We covered early Canadian history, abuse of the aboriginal peoples of Canada, war with America, and WW1/WW2/the Holocaust. I don't think we were really taught at all about European/Asian history or the Soviet Union. I think I could have taken some classes related to those in highschool (secondary school), but for anyone working towards a non-history bachelor's degree those courses were generally not something that you could fit in your timetable.
  - aprilthird2021 2y ago
    I am 30. In all my schooltime history classes, we never covered any famine in India or the Global South. Only the Holocaust, the Holodomor, the Irish Potato Famine, the Chinese famine, and maybe I'm forgetting a few. These are the main times famine showed up in our books. No discussion about Armenia, or any related such things. Population transfer policies of the USSR and China were discussed (and these are close to genocide). Native American extermination was obviously covered heavily. As was the role of slavery in American history up to the present day. I believe there was also one in Africa committed by Belgium in the Congo? I remember seeing some photos of something cruel from there to this effect.
BrandoElFollito 2y ago
In France this really depends, today, on the teacher. When I was a kid in the 80s colonization was very lightly mentioned, mostly in the vontext of punitive comonies quch as Guyana. Otherwise these territories were shown to children in mainland France as normal departments. Today it is different. Colonies are part of the cirriculum but teachers have more leeway in appproching the topic. One of my children had the "we are genocide makers" version, when the other one was "colonization was a blessing for them" (I am overdrawing the picture)
tmtvl 2y ago
Belgian here. Now, it's been decades, but we did get a mention of our colonial past, with a cartoon of Leopold II as a snake constricting some African person. I don't think we got told what kind of atrocities we committed (and Belgian colonialism was really, really bad), but we do get told it was bad.
nine_k 2y ago
Not even mentioned? E.g. the great man-made famine of 1935 in the USSR is mentioned in the school history course in Russia. Post-Soviet, admittedly, but still closer in time by a century. To say nothing of the US school programs mentioning quite a bit of bad things that have been done by the Americans during the last couple of centuries.
- hinkley 2y ago
  What Americans don't learn about is that the famine we nearly triggered here during WWII was caused by seizing farms owned by Japanese Americans and then running them into the fucking ground. I've heard claims that the food rationing would have been totally unnecessary if not for that. Most of them didn't get those farms back after the war either.
  - hermitcrab 2y ago
    George Takei (yes, the guy off Star Trek) has talked in detail about his family's terrible experiences of internment during WWII.
  - rrrrrrrrrrrryan 2y ago
    I'd learned about the internment camps from a human rights perspective, and the loss of family businesses, but I'm ashamed to admit I'd never learned about the economic impact until now. I had to check the veracity of this, and it seems to be true. By 1945, Japanese American farms were responsible for 30%+ of the agricultural output of California.
    - hinkley 2y ago
      I only heard about this a few years ago. About the fourth time I listened to someone talk about the camps. Which we did talk about during school but very briefly.
ludicrousdispla 2y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies_My_Teacher_Told_Me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies_My_Teacher_Told_Me
- thimkerbell 2y ago
  Text (link) display is too truncated, so, "Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong is a 1995 book..."
Vinnl 2y ago
In the Netherlands the colonial period is mentioned, but referred to as 'the Golden Century', and atrocities committed aren't really mentioned. There has been public debate about this in recent years, so this may have changed, and the debate in general, in addition to eg museums and documentaries paying attention to it, will probably have contributed to slightly more widespread knowledge about it. It's how I learned a bit about it.
- dddw 2y ago
  I also wasnt teached about this in school when I was a kid 3 decades afo. My history knowledge came selftaught from nul-tot-nu comics, where colonialism, slavery and holocaust definitly where touched upon. These so called `zwarte bladzijden` (black pages, doesnt translate nicely) are more common in education nowadays after lively debates the last decade(s). Must be said the knowledge/interest of historical knowledge among my fellow Dutchies isn`t all that great. https://www.historischnieuwsblad.nl/slavernij-en-kolonialisme-prominent-in-schoolboeken/ https://www.historischnieuwsblad.nl/slavernij-en-kolonialism... > figures from article above: percentages of total history subject matter: colonialism 9% Slavery 4 % Holocaust 2 %
  - drysine 2y ago
    >`zwarte bladzijden` We have the same expression in Russian.
    - dddw 2y ago
      I heard sometime the best language to read Russian literature in (besides Russian) is Dutch, you know anything about this?
      - drysine 2y ago
        No, I haven't heard about that, but that's interesting. Russia learned a lot from Dutch during Peter the Great's time, but I can't make a connection to literature from that. Perhaps, just similar national characters?
lurk2 2y ago
> Unsurprisingly, I don't think the Irish or Bengal famines were mentioned. In fact the whole British imperial project was largely glossed over. But lots of coverge of the Romans, Vikings, Normans, the black death and the two World Wars. I read a ton of Usborne and Dorling Kindersley books and these were exactly the sorts or subjects they fixated on. I suppose it's probably part of some long-established national curriculum. Where I live, people often (conspiratorially) complain that more serious subjects were not covered in school, but the only things I can't ever really remember covering involved South-and-4th-of-July-American history. We didn't really cover Africa outside of the 20th century, either. To be honest I think American schools are the only ones who really give colonial history the attention it deserves because it's the basis of their entire country and then goes on to fill out the comparatively boring eighty or so years between the end of the Civil War and the start of World War II. I find most people I talk to from the UK who are aware of some aspect of colonial history are either apologists for the British Empire or have this imported view common in North American (and especially Canadian) universities that the British were this uniquely nefarious force of evil. I suppose the historically curious ones just spend their time studying the Norman conquests.
- donall 2y ago
  I don't think the British empire was "uniquely nefarious", but I think most of the indigenous people of the places that they colonised experienced it as being _fairly_ nefarious! I'm not aware of many former colonies celebrating Colonisation Day or bemoaning the withdrawal of the British Army from their territories. Even one of the most anglo-friendly and prosperous former colonies, the USA, didn't have very nice things to say about the Empire when they were a part of it.
  - lurk2 2y ago
    > I think most of the indigenous people of the places that they colonised experienced it as being _fairly_ nefarious! The Maori were eating each other before the British arrived - that's not hyperbole, they practised cannibalism. Upper caste Indians were throwing still-living women into fires so they could join their husbands in the afterlife. If the British arrived in these places as marauding pirates (and they did), they still come out ahead on these metrics alone. > Even one of the most anglo-friendly and prosperous former colonies, the USA, didn't have very nice things to say about the Empire when they were a part of it. Ironically that is where some of the worst atrocities occurred.
ascorbic 2y ago
Empire is taught now, though the specific parts of it will depend on the school/teacher. Here's an example of the sort of teaching material that might be used: https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/zy4sg2p https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/zy4sg2p
- smolder 2y ago
  This is a reminder why trying to be hip to sell a message is actually very often counterproductive. (See D.A.R.E.) That Quentin Question video made me cringe from the beginning to the eventual end when I closed it for being insufferable. Patronizing kids does not hold sway in the long term. They don't stay young. I think it's better to treat them more mature than they are, to speak to the people they become.
- hermitcrab 2y ago
  I should have added the context that my secondary schooling was in the 70s and 80s.
- hermitcrab 2y ago
  The tonal shifts in that video gave me whiplash. Please tell me they didn't give that treatment to the Holocaust as well.
  - ascorbic 2y ago
    That's KS2 material, so 7-11 year olds. They don't cover the Holocaust until they're older. Here's an example of KS3 material about the Holocaust. https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/zt48dp3 https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/zt48dp3
varunnrao 2y ago
> In fact the whole British imperial project was largely glossed over. But lots of coverge of the Romans, Vikings, Normans, the black death and the two World Wars. I feel that this is a major source of why Britain (and Europe to a larger extent) is unable to come to terms with reality on a majority of issues today - immigration, foreign policy, economic policy etc. They simply have not come to terms with the loss of their empires and the wealth they brought. So they choose to not teach it. This leads British institutions today to have a serious colonial hangover whether they know it or not. The operating paradigm is still an outdated one in many cases. They teach students what they think made Britain great -- the Romans, the Norman invasion, the World Wars, Churchill etc. -- while actually glossing over what made them great: Empire. It really brings to mind a line from the Thor: Ragnarok movie - "Proud to have it; ashamed of how they got it". The British people today might not have an idea of their Empire but the effects still linger on in their former colonies.
- edwcross 2y ago
  Well, if this is not mentioned at all during history classes, at least it prevents them from being taught that "British brought prosperity and development to all of its colonies, making the world better for everyone" and "they should be thankful that we went there and did all those things, how nice of us, and how rude of them not to thank us again and again!".
  - hermitcrab 2y ago
    >"they should be thankful that we went there and did all those things, how nice of us" I think that is a tacit assumption that a lot of British people make.
    - concordDance 2y ago
      I think it comes from the general belief that poverty is bad and a simplistic view of cause and effect. "Before the Empire they were really poor, with high mortality, after the empire they were much wealthier with lower mortality". It's just going to be the default view if one does not have further information.
newsclues 2y ago
History classes are propaganda
- arnaudsm 2y ago
  Depends of the country, it can be done correctly. I also wish we taught historiography alongside history itself, it's an important part of building critical thinking.
- chasd00 2y ago
  So true. One of my better accomplishments as a parent is the BS detection skills of my kids. They’re respectful but make it clear when one of their teachers shift from facts to personal politics and bias. I’m always happy to answer emails from teachers with an agenda who get called on it by my kids.
BiteCode_dev 2y ago
In France there are mentions of the colonies, slavery, and ensuing wars. And you study napoleon of course. But there is never a critic of it, it's mentioned as matter of fact for the first, and only in positive for the second. I had to grow old to realize "wait, napoleon was basically our hitler...".
- hermitcrab 2y ago
  Napoleon is certainly a complicated figure and his raw ambition caused death and misery for millions. I don't think he carried out any genocides though, did he? I see an accusation of genocide online ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon%27s_Crimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon%27s_Crimes ), but it doesn't sound very credible.
  - donall 2y ago
    Complicated doesn't begin to describe him! I think that, by our modern standards, I would be very unhappy to be a citizen of Napoleon's empire. However, considering the available governments in Europe at the tail end of the 18th century, I think a time-traveller such as myself would be more interested in spending a few years in France than any of her neighbours. I imagine I would think differently if I came from an aristocratic background!
  - BiteCode_dev 2y ago
    Indeed, he didn't commit genocide, but his wars ended up killing 3.5 to 6 millions people, a staggering amount for the time. Given that those deaths were basically because of his lust for territorial extension and disregard for human life, I would say we are in a similar ballpark as Mao, Hitler, Stalin, etc. Of course, our history books are quick to state he made reforms, particularly legal and administrative ones, that benefitted our country a lot and still echo benefits today. But again, I think if you a responsible for millions of deaths because of your desire for conquest, any arguments you can make in the other way are instantly moot. You may, however, made the argument that it would have been better to be a French citizen at the time than somewhere else, depending on where and how you were born. But it's a different point.
hermitcrab 2y ago
I'm impressed with the level of debate in the answers. Thank you.
jonasdegendt 2y ago
I'm probably younger than the other Belgian data point in this thread but when I went to high school in the late 2000's our colonial past, warts and all, was taught during history class. Down to the pictures of people with chopped off hands because they hadn't met quota.
- loudmax 2y ago
  I went to elementary school in Belgium from 1978-1982. I had the sense there was some national pride in having had a major African colony, but maybe Leopold II wasn't a benevolent ruler. Unlike Leopold I or Albert I, who were depicted quite heroically. I didn't learn quite how far from benevolent Leopold II really was until much later in life.
jvvw 2y ago
I definitely learned about the Irish Potato Famine when I did GCSE history in the UK (England) in the early 90s. I learned a lot about British colonial history too in my GCSE.
- dagw 2y ago
  I did history GCSE as well in the mid 90s, and from what I can recall it was only 20th century history. I'm also pretty sure that the curriculum was split into several modules and the school got to pick something like 3 out of N modules to focus on.
verzali 2y ago
I don't think the Spanish address it at all. I lived there for a while and I remember visting a lot of glorious cathedrals and castles. Most of them were funded with gold looted from the Americas, but there was never any mention of it. And neither do the Spanish (or Portuguese) people seem to associate themselves with the historical empires those countries ruled.
- baud147258 2y ago
  Maybe because Spain and Portugal lost their empires earlier than Great-Britain?
xandrius 2y ago
In Italy the Eritrean and Ethiopian parts of our history are mentioned and nothing more, at least in the past. There is a very good documentary about Italian war crimes which include the Ethiopian campaign, as well as the treatment of the Balkans by the Italian troops.
pohuing 2y ago
German curriculum is state and school difficulty level dependent to a degree, so what I say may not apply to Bavaria for example. I was taught quite extensively about the various German states with extra detail starting at the French revolution and very detailed Weimar and Third Reich. Germany's role in colonialism was always limited compared to the other European powers. We were late to the game and lost them after WW1, so it was more of a footnote. It did mention our colonies in East Africa and South East Asia but only mentioned the genocide against the Herero without a mention of details. The Atlantic Slave and trade was covered in great detail both in history and English lessons. Same for the Spanish and Portuguese exploitation of South and Middle America.
prmoustache 2y ago
Spain is still in complete denial. In fact, the national day is still Columbus day or as they call it, Día de la Hispanidad.
- hermitcrab 2y ago
  Columbus was a monster.
petesergeant 2y ago
> I went to school in the UK. Unsurprisingly, I don't think the Irish or Bengal famines were mentioned There's a _lot_ of British history, and world history. There are several (5?) competing exam boards offering GCSEs and A Level's in history, and generally schools are free to choose between exam boards on a subject-by-subject basis. Each of these will offer an absolute multitude of historic periods, crises, etc, that again schools are free to choose from; history exam papers will offer students choices of questions depending on what they actually studied. What you get taught in your history class at school in the UK is down to your school's Head of History, rather than a complex government-led conspiracy. If your school's Head of History wants to teach "Empire is Bad", they will have no trouble finding approved materials to do so!
arp242 2y ago
> Are these taught a schools in these countries? Genuine question - I'm curious. When I went to secondary school from about 1997-2001 Indonesia in particular was covered fairly extensively. From what I recall it wasn't white-washed either: I remember one chapter describing how a young Indonesian woman was punished with hot chilli pasta (sambal) on her vagina. Pretty graphic stuff to teach a 14-year old. Experiences seem to differ though, because I've heard other people describe that it's barely covered and/or white-washed. Maybe it depends on the school? I don't know. Also the schooling system completely changed since then.
- hermitcrab 2y ago
  Based on the responses here, it seems to vary a lot between countries, within countries and over time.

mtmail 2y ago

In Germany the colonial period is taught, for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Conference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Conference and global maps. The German colonies are hardly mentioned, Germany lost them all 100 years ago, and I don't think many Germans could name the countries/regions even. The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_Wars ("systematic extermination of native peoples") isn't taught.

hackandthink 2y ago
The largest german colonial project was based on starving millions of people in Eastern Europe mostly Russians. I did not hear about in school. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_Plan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_Plan
- dmichulke 2y ago
  I wasn't aware of this exact plan either, but to the defense of my history teacher / curriculum: It was made very clear that millions of civilians died (even when not counting the concentration camps) due to the war of extermination (Vernichtungskrieg)
  - hackandthink 2y ago
    I guess it depends on the decade and the Bundesland. In the 80s, the Wehrmacht was still presented as a morally decent army. That changed in the 90s, partly due to the Wehrmacht exhibition. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wehrmachtsausstellung https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wehrmachtsausstellung
immibis 2y ago
Non-German in Germany. I get the impression that everyone knows that one holocaust very shamefully, but not any of the other ones. Or the one that's happening right now. (In fact, I could get deported for this comment if the police had nothing better to do. Oh well.) And in New Zealand they also didn't teach us about the way our ancestors holocausted the Māori. Holocausts happen with alarming regularly in history, and the side doing one usually ends up winning, except, you know, that one time. I wish I understood what factors make people so unable to reason about them or even acknowledge them. Business as usual bias? Ego defense? I think the German teaching that there was only one and there will never be another falls under denial. The way you can't talk about Palestine in Germany feels like the way you can't talk about Hacker News moderation on Hacker News, except, you know, the life and death of about 6 million Muslims are at stake.

ggm 2y ago

I went to school in Scotland 65-78 and it was mentioned, studied extensively, as was British colonialism and the post war independence movement. Perhaps Scots education ran to a different agenda to the English one. (the Scots diaspora as a result of Land clearances, and the Irish independence struggle and its links (and opposition) to Scots Protestantism and Irish migration to the mainland might have driven this. We have both Irish independence fights at football matches and orange order parades)

_2d30 2y ago
My experience in America is largely one of the following: American person on social media (and, yes, I would claim HN is social media) claims "They never taught us this in school!!!" with many agreeing emphatically. ... and 90+% of the time I remember specifically being taught it. Most people don't remember much of their educations.
- lolinder 2y ago
  In the US there are large regional differences in what is taught, especially when it comes to history topics. So some of the difference might be that your state had a more comprehensive approach to history than the commenters' states. But yes, most people have a really bad memory of what's taught in school (and that probably isn't entirely their fault, the system clearly doesn't lead to sticky knowledge).
  - ggm 2y ago
    The scots educational curriculum is sufficiently different to the English that I had significant difficulty at (an English) University, because of assumptions about what was learned. Also, time changes things. I did school during a period where school history was in ferment and the teacher said at some points we were learning a new curriculum which rejected "great men of history" theory and focussed on mass movements. I suspect after Thatcher this was revised, it was almost overtly marxist. The textbooks on post colonialism were pretty clear. I hasten to add I had no problem with this, and I read "the 18th Brumaire of Louis Buonaparte" as revision for the history exam in the library, with much pleasure. This was because we'd done a lot on the revolutions across Europe in 1848. Strangely we did very little on Chartism. When I went to uni I found out this was a really active field of study, especially in the midlands because so many Chartist pamphlets are held by places like Leeds university, the working class towns. Maybe thats why Scots History ignored it: it was a south of the border story! If they'd done the emergence of the British Labour party I bet we'd have had a lot given the origins of Labour in Scotland, and the Red Clyde story. That was probably done in year 12 and I left school early to go work in a Marine Biology lab. I probably remember this because I enjoyed it. A lot of history doesn't excite everyone, perhaps I was lucky. I am buggered if I can remember the Maths, which isn't very helpful given I work in CS. Like Arnold Rimmer in "Red Dwarf" I am acceptably meh at colouring in the crinkly bits in Geography but not much else.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

t-3 2y ago

In the US, we covered a lot of old world colonial abuses in AP Euro and World History, but they are only briefly mentioned in regular courses. Irish and Armenian genocides were given special focus, probably mostly due to the demographics of the area I grew up in. US and Eurocolonial treatment of the Native Americans was covered extensively in regular courses though, often alongside and explicitly compared to the Holocaust which is also covered extensively.

analog31 2y ago
I'm curious, how old are you if I may ask? I'm 61, and of these things, only the Holocaust and the failure of the Soviet Union were covered.
- t-3 2y ago
  34.
  - analog31 2y ago
    Thanks. I should also note that my kids learned about those things in school.
- jjayj 2y ago
  Just to add some (unprovoked) additional info here: I'm a 26 year old Canadian. We covered early Canadian history, abuse of the aboriginal peoples of Canada, war with America, and WW1/WW2/the Holocaust. I don't think we were really taught at all about European/Asian history or the Soviet Union. I think I could have taken some classes related to those in highschool (secondary school), but for anyone working towards a non-history bachelor's degree those courses were generally not something that you could fit in your timetable.
- aprilthird2021 2y ago
  I am 30. In all my schooltime history classes, we never covered any famine in India or the Global South. Only the Holocaust, the Holodomor, the Irish Potato Famine, the Chinese famine, and maybe I'm forgetting a few. These are the main times famine showed up in our books. No discussion about Armenia, or any related such things. Population transfer policies of the USSR and China were discussed (and these are close to genocide). Native American extermination was obviously covered heavily. As was the role of slavery in American history up to the present day. I believe there was also one in Africa committed by Belgium in the Congo? I remember seeing some photos of something cruel from there to this effect.

BrandoElFollito 2y ago

In France this really depends, today, on the teacher. When I was a kid in the 80s colonization was very lightly mentioned, mostly in the vontext of punitive comonies quch as Guyana. Otherwise these territories were shown to children in mainland France as normal departments. Today it is different. Colonies are part of the cirriculum but teachers have more leeway in appproching the topic. One of my children had the "we are genocide makers" version, when the other one was "colonization was a blessing for them" (I am overdrawing the picture)

tmtvl 2y ago

Belgian here. Now, it's been decades, but we did get a mention of our colonial past, with a cartoon of Leopold II as a snake constricting some African person. I don't think we got told what kind of atrocities we committed (and Belgian colonialism was really, really bad), but we do get told it was bad.

nine_k 2y ago

Not even mentioned? E.g. the great man-made famine of 1935 in the USSR is mentioned in the school history course in Russia. Post-Soviet, admittedly, but still closer in time by a century. To say nothing of the US school programs mentioning quite a bit of bad things that have been done by the Americans during the last couple of centuries.

hinkley 2y ago
What Americans don't learn about is that the famine we nearly triggered here during WWII was caused by seizing farms owned by Japanese Americans and then running them into the fucking ground. I've heard claims that the food rationing would have been totally unnecessary if not for that. Most of them didn't get those farms back after the war either.
- hermitcrab 2y ago
  George Takei (yes, the guy off Star Trek) has talked in detail about his family's terrible experiences of internment during WWII.
- rrrrrrrrrrrryan 2y ago
  I'd learned about the internment camps from a human rights perspective, and the loss of family businesses, but I'm ashamed to admit I'd never learned about the economic impact until now. I had to check the veracity of this, and it seems to be true. By 1945, Japanese American farms were responsible for 30%+ of the agricultural output of California.
  - hinkley 2y ago
    I only heard about this a few years ago. About the fourth time I listened to someone talk about the camps. Which we did talk about during school but very briefly.

ludicrousdispla 2y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies_My_Teacher_Told_Me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies_My_Teacher_Told_Me

thimkerbell 2y ago
Text (link) display is too truncated, so, "Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong is a 1995 book..."

Vinnl 2y ago

In the Netherlands the colonial period is mentioned, but referred to as 'the Golden Century', and atrocities committed aren't really mentioned. There has been public debate about this in recent years, so this may have changed, and the debate in general, in addition to eg museums and documentaries paying attention to it, will probably have contributed to slightly more widespread knowledge about it. It's how I learned a bit about it.

dddw 2y ago
I also wasnt teached about this in school when I was a kid 3 decades afo. My history knowledge came selftaught from nul-tot-nu comics, where colonialism, slavery and holocaust definitly where touched upon. These so called `zwarte bladzijden` (black pages, doesnt translate nicely) are more common in education nowadays after lively debates the last decade(s). Must be said the knowledge/interest of historical knowledge among my fellow Dutchies isn`t all that great. https://www.historischnieuwsblad.nl/slavernij-en-kolonialisme-prominent-in-schoolboeken/ https://www.historischnieuwsblad.nl/slavernij-en-kolonialism... > figures from article above: percentages of total history subject matter: colonialism 9% Slavery 4 % Holocaust 2 %
- drysine 2y ago
  >`zwarte bladzijden` We have the same expression in Russian.
  - dddw 2y ago
    I heard sometime the best language to read Russian literature in (besides Russian) is Dutch, you know anything about this?
    - drysine 2y ago
      No, I haven't heard about that, but that's interesting. Russia learned a lot from Dutch during Peter the Great's time, but I can't make a connection to literature from that. Perhaps, just similar national characters?

lurk2 2y ago

> Unsurprisingly, I don't think the Irish or Bengal famines were mentioned. In fact the whole British imperial project was largely glossed over. But lots of coverge of the Romans, Vikings, Normans, the black death and the two World Wars. I read a ton of Usborne and Dorling Kindersley books and these were exactly the sorts or subjects they fixated on. I suppose it's probably part of some long-established national curriculum. Where I live, people often (conspiratorially) complain that more serious subjects were not covered in school, but the only things I can't ever really remember covering involved South-and-4th-of-July-American history. We didn't really cover Africa outside of the 20th century, either. To be honest I think American schools are the only ones who really give colonial history the attention it deserves because it's the basis of their entire country and then goes on to fill out the comparatively boring eighty or so years between the end of the Civil War and the start of World War II. I find most people I talk to from the UK who are aware of some aspect of colonial history are either apologists for the British Empire or have this imported view common in North American (and especially Canadian) universities that the British were this uniquely nefarious force of evil. I suppose the historically curious ones just spend their time studying the Norman conquests.

donall 2y ago
I don't think the British empire was "uniquely nefarious", but I think most of the indigenous people of the places that they colonised experienced it as being _fairly_ nefarious! I'm not aware of many former colonies celebrating Colonisation Day or bemoaning the withdrawal of the British Army from their territories. Even one of the most anglo-friendly and prosperous former colonies, the USA, didn't have very nice things to say about the Empire when they were a part of it.
- lurk2 2y ago
  > I think most of the indigenous people of the places that they colonised experienced it as being _fairly_ nefarious! The Maori were eating each other before the British arrived - that's not hyperbole, they practised cannibalism. Upper caste Indians were throwing still-living women into fires so they could join their husbands in the afterlife. If the British arrived in these places as marauding pirates (and they did), they still come out ahead on these metrics alone. > Even one of the most anglo-friendly and prosperous former colonies, the USA, didn't have very nice things to say about the Empire when they were a part of it. Ironically that is where some of the worst atrocities occurred.

ascorbic 2y ago

Empire is taught now, though the specific parts of it will depend on the school/teacher. Here's an example of the sort of teaching material that might be used: https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/zy4sg2p https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/zy4sg2p

smolder 2y ago
This is a reminder why trying to be hip to sell a message is actually very often counterproductive. (See D.A.R.E.) That Quentin Question video made me cringe from the beginning to the eventual end when I closed it for being insufferable. Patronizing kids does not hold sway in the long term. They don't stay young. I think it's better to treat them more mature than they are, to speak to the people they become.
hermitcrab 2y ago
I should have added the context that my secondary schooling was in the 70s and 80s.
hermitcrab 2y ago
The tonal shifts in that video gave me whiplash. Please tell me they didn't give that treatment to the Holocaust as well.
- ascorbic 2y ago
  That's KS2 material, so 7-11 year olds. They don't cover the Holocaust until they're older. Here's an example of KS3 material about the Holocaust. https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/zt48dp3 https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/zt48dp3

varunnrao 2y ago

> In fact the whole British imperial project was largely glossed over. But lots of coverge of the Romans, Vikings, Normans, the black death and the two World Wars. I feel that this is a major source of why Britain (and Europe to a larger extent) is unable to come to terms with reality on a majority of issues today - immigration, foreign policy, economic policy etc. They simply have not come to terms with the loss of their empires and the wealth they brought. So they choose to not teach it. This leads British institutions today to have a serious colonial hangover whether they know it or not. The operating paradigm is still an outdated one in many cases. They teach students what they think made Britain great -- the Romans, the Norman invasion, the World Wars, Churchill etc. -- while actually glossing over what made them great: Empire. It really brings to mind a line from the Thor: Ragnarok movie - "Proud to have it; ashamed of how they got it". The British people today might not have an idea of their Empire but the effects still linger on in their former colonies.

edwcross 2y ago
Well, if this is not mentioned at all during history classes, at least it prevents them from being taught that "British brought prosperity and development to all of its colonies, making the world better for everyone" and "they should be thankful that we went there and did all those things, how nice of us, and how rude of them not to thank us again and again!".
- hermitcrab 2y ago
  >"they should be thankful that we went there and did all those things, how nice of us" I think that is a tacit assumption that a lot of British people make.
  - concordDance 2y ago
    I think it comes from the general belief that poverty is bad and a simplistic view of cause and effect. "Before the Empire they were really poor, with high mortality, after the empire they were much wealthier with lower mortality". It's just going to be the default view if one does not have further information.

newsclues 2y ago

History classes are propaganda

arnaudsm 2y ago
Depends of the country, it can be done correctly. I also wish we taught historiography alongside history itself, it's an important part of building critical thinking.
chasd00 2y ago
So true. One of my better accomplishments as a parent is the BS detection skills of my kids. They’re respectful but make it clear when one of their teachers shift from facts to personal politics and bias. I’m always happy to answer emails from teachers with an agenda who get called on it by my kids.

BiteCode_dev 2y ago

In France there are mentions of the colonies, slavery, and ensuing wars. And you study napoleon of course. But there is never a critic of it, it's mentioned as matter of fact for the first, and only in positive for the second. I had to grow old to realize "wait, napoleon was basically our hitler...".

hermitcrab 2y ago
Napoleon is certainly a complicated figure and his raw ambition caused death and misery for millions. I don't think he carried out any genocides though, did he? I see an accusation of genocide online ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon%27s_Crimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon%27s_Crimes ), but it doesn't sound very credible.
- donall 2y ago
  Complicated doesn't begin to describe him! I think that, by our modern standards, I would be very unhappy to be a citizen of Napoleon's empire. However, considering the available governments in Europe at the tail end of the 18th century, I think a time-traveller such as myself would be more interested in spending a few years in France than any of her neighbours. I imagine I would think differently if I came from an aristocratic background!
- BiteCode_dev 2y ago
  Indeed, he didn't commit genocide, but his wars ended up killing 3.5 to 6 millions people, a staggering amount for the time. Given that those deaths were basically because of his lust for territorial extension and disregard for human life, I would say we are in a similar ballpark as Mao, Hitler, Stalin, etc. Of course, our history books are quick to state he made reforms, particularly legal and administrative ones, that benefitted our country a lot and still echo benefits today. But again, I think if you a responsible for millions of deaths because of your desire for conquest, any arguments you can make in the other way are instantly moot. You may, however, made the argument that it would have been better to be a French citizen at the time than somewhere else, depending on where and how you were born. But it's a different point.

hermitcrab 2y ago

I'm impressed with the level of debate in the answers. Thank you.

jonasdegendt 2y ago

I'm probably younger than the other Belgian data point in this thread but when I went to high school in the late 2000's our colonial past, warts and all, was taught during history class. Down to the pictures of people with chopped off hands because they hadn't met quota.

loudmax 2y ago
I went to elementary school in Belgium from 1978-1982. I had the sense there was some national pride in having had a major African colony, but maybe Leopold II wasn't a benevolent ruler. Unlike Leopold I or Albert I, who were depicted quite heroically. I didn't learn quite how far from benevolent Leopold II really was until much later in life.

jvvw 2y ago

I definitely learned about the Irish Potato Famine when I did GCSE history in the UK (England) in the early 90s. I learned a lot about British colonial history too in my GCSE.

dagw 2y ago
I did history GCSE as well in the mid 90s, and from what I can recall it was only 20th century history. I'm also pretty sure that the curriculum was split into several modules and the school got to pick something like 3 out of N modules to focus on.

verzali 2y ago

I don't think the Spanish address it at all. I lived there for a while and I remember visting a lot of glorious cathedrals and castles. Most of them were funded with gold looted from the Americas, but there was never any mention of it. And neither do the Spanish (or Portuguese) people seem to associate themselves with the historical empires those countries ruled.

baud147258 2y ago
Maybe because Spain and Portugal lost their empires earlier than Great-Britain?

xandrius 2y ago

In Italy the Eritrean and Ethiopian parts of our history are mentioned and nothing more, at least in the past. There is a very good documentary about Italian war crimes which include the Ethiopian campaign, as well as the treatment of the Balkans by the Italian troops.

pohuing 2y ago

German curriculum is state and school difficulty level dependent to a degree, so what I say may not apply to Bavaria for example. I was taught quite extensively about the various German states with extra detail starting at the French revolution and very detailed Weimar and Third Reich. Germany's role in colonialism was always limited compared to the other European powers. We were late to the game and lost them after WW1, so it was more of a footnote. It did mention our colonies in East Africa and South East Asia but only mentioned the genocide against the Herero without a mention of details. The Atlantic Slave and trade was covered in great detail both in history and English lessons. Same for the Spanish and Portuguese exploitation of South and Middle America.

prmoustache 2y ago

Spain is still in complete denial. In fact, the national day is still Columbus day or as they call it, Día de la Hispanidad.

hermitcrab 2y ago
Columbus was a monster.

petesergeant 2y ago

> I went to school in the UK. Unsurprisingly, I don't think the Irish or Bengal famines were mentioned There's a _lot_ of British history, and world history. There are several (5?) competing exam boards offering GCSEs and A Level's in history, and generally schools are free to choose between exam boards on a subject-by-subject basis. Each of these will offer an absolute multitude of historic periods, crises, etc, that again schools are free to choose from; history exam papers will offer students choices of questions depending on what they actually studied. What you get taught in your history class at school in the UK is down to your school's Head of History, rather than a complex government-led conspiracy. If your school's Head of History wants to teach "Empire is Bad", they will have no trouble finding approved materials to do so!

arp242 2y ago

> Are these taught a schools in these countries? Genuine question - I'm curious. When I went to secondary school from about 1997-2001 Indonesia in particular was covered fairly extensively. From what I recall it wasn't white-washed either: I remember one chapter describing how a young Indonesian woman was punished with hot chilli pasta (sambal) on her vagina. Pretty graphic stuff to teach a 14-year old. Experiences seem to differ though, because I've heard other people describe that it's barely covered and/or white-washed. Maybe it depends on the school? I don't know. Also the schooling system completely changed since then.

hermitcrab 2y ago
Based on the responses here, it seems to vary a lot between countries, within countries and over time.