3 ms·

What history course would you expect to see this in? Courses don't tend to contain "by-the-ways" for things outside of the course material. Should it be against

What history course would you expect to see this in? Courses don't tend to contain "by-the-ways" for things outside of the course material. Should it be against the rules to have a course specifically on the african slave trade? If somebody is teaching a course on the italian renaissance, should they be obligated to mention that great art was made in china too? College history courses aren't "one-sided morality plays."

like_any_other 9mo ago
[flagged]
- UncleMeat 9mo ago
  I am not sure what you want. The reason why there is more discussion of atrocities committed by europeans is because there is way more course material focused on europeans. There are more courses on the american and french revolutions than the haitian revolution. Even orientalism is a european frame, focusing on how europeans engaged with the near and far east. A course on orientalism is not a course on the middle east. It is a course on europeans. I do not observe classes on precolumbian american or the islamic golden age shying away from atrocities in their course material. Courses on specific topics rather than time period / region pairings don't tend to shy away from a global frame either. So you've got a few options. You could insist that when atrocities come up in courses that focus on europeans that the course contains a "but actually" where it discusses other atrocities to balance things out. This seems odd from a pedagogical standpoint. You could reduce the number of courses focusing on europeans and increase the number of courses focused elsewhere. But doing this is also considered "woke." You could deliberately avoid discussion of atrocities committed by europeans in "western civ" style courses. This also doesn't strike me as right. Could you share what specifically you'd expect to change about history curricula?
  - like_any_other 9mo ago
    Oh, I hadn't considered that there are complex and nuanced reasons why only white wrongdoing is discussed, and by others is ignored. > Even orientalism is a european frame, focusing on how europeans engaged with the near and far east. A course on orientalism is not a course on the middle east. It is a course on europeans. It is nothing of the sort. "Orientalism" is not about Barbary slave raids that emptied whole villages, about Ottoman invaders colonizing half of eastern Europe for centuries, or about the Islamic invasion of Spain. Instead it's focused on problematizing the fact that Europeans viewed these invaders as an 'other', and did not accept and welcome them as their own. There is, notably, not a similar course chiding native Americans for seeing Europeans as 'other'. There's not even a course problematizing how Ottomans viewed [1] Europe. You're free to invent further sophisticated reasons why this ridiculous cherry-picking is all perfectly natural and not motivated at all. I am done. [1] Sorry did I say 'viewed'? I meant 'view', present tense: “Have five children, not three. You are Europe’s future.” - https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/recep-tayyip-erdogan-tells-turks-in-europe-to-have-5-children-1670780 https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/recep-tayyip-erdogan-tells-t...
    - UncleMeat 9mo ago
      Orientalism is a discussion of how europeans engaged with culture from the near and far east, yes. That's a topic on europeans. And europeans engaged with this culture incompletely, which is not exactly a surprise for any community on the planet. Again, the reason why we see more courses on Orientalism than the reverse is because of the continued disproportionate focus on european history in the academy. And at least for my professor friend who teaches indigenous american history, there is absolutely discussion of the ways that they understood and misunderstood europeans. I do not understand how a modern authoritarian leader relates to this whatsoever. Does Erdogan have some say in history curricula at US universities?

like_any_other 9mo ago

[flagged]

UncleMeat 9mo ago
I am not sure what you want. The reason why there is more discussion of atrocities committed by europeans is because there is way more course material focused on europeans. There are more courses on the american and french revolutions than the haitian revolution. Even orientalism is a european frame, focusing on how europeans engaged with the near and far east. A course on orientalism is not a course on the middle east. It is a course on europeans. I do not observe classes on precolumbian american or the islamic golden age shying away from atrocities in their course material. Courses on specific topics rather than time period / region pairings don't tend to shy away from a global frame either. So you've got a few options. You could insist that when atrocities come up in courses that focus on europeans that the course contains a "but actually" where it discusses other atrocities to balance things out. This seems odd from a pedagogical standpoint. You could reduce the number of courses focusing on europeans and increase the number of courses focused elsewhere. But doing this is also considered "woke." You could deliberately avoid discussion of atrocities committed by europeans in "western civ" style courses. This also doesn't strike me as right. Could you share what specifically you'd expect to change about history curricula?
- like_any_other 9mo ago
  Oh, I hadn't considered that there are complex and nuanced reasons why only white wrongdoing is discussed, and by others is ignored. > Even orientalism is a european frame, focusing on how europeans engaged with the near and far east. A course on orientalism is not a course on the middle east. It is a course on europeans. It is nothing of the sort. "Orientalism" is not about Barbary slave raids that emptied whole villages, about Ottoman invaders colonizing half of eastern Europe for centuries, or about the Islamic invasion of Spain. Instead it's focused on problematizing the fact that Europeans viewed these invaders as an 'other', and did not accept and welcome them as their own. There is, notably, not a similar course chiding native Americans for seeing Europeans as 'other'. There's not even a course problematizing how Ottomans viewed [1] Europe. You're free to invent further sophisticated reasons why this ridiculous cherry-picking is all perfectly natural and not motivated at all. I am done. [1] Sorry did I say 'viewed'? I meant 'view', present tense: “Have five children, not three. You are Europe’s future.” - https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/recep-tayyip-erdogan-tells-turks-in-europe-to-have-5-children-1670780 https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/recep-tayyip-erdogan-tells-t...
  - UncleMeat 9mo ago
    Orientalism is a discussion of how europeans engaged with culture from the near and far east, yes. That's a topic on europeans. And europeans engaged with this culture incompletely, which is not exactly a surprise for any community on the planet. Again, the reason why we see more courses on Orientalism than the reverse is because of the continued disproportionate focus on european history in the academy. And at least for my professor friend who teaches indigenous american history, there is absolutely discussion of the ways that they understood and misunderstood europeans. I do not understand how a modern authoritarian leader relates to this whatsoever. Does Erdogan have some say in history curricula at US universities?