4 ms·

On a tangent (but hopefully quite relevant): Does anyone else feel that perhaps a lot of what we're seeing is a case of "Those who do not know history's mistak

by mmagin 13y ago

On a tangent (but hopefully quite relevant): Does anyone else feel that perhaps a lot of what we're seeing is a case of "Those who do not know history's mistakes are doomed to repeat them"? As I look back on all of the history education I received in school (the compulsory part, not college), it occurs to me that it was largely a lot of propaganda. With the exception of black slavery, a brief mention of WWII internment camps for Japanese-Americans, and some ambivalence over the war in Vietnam, there's hardly any mention of anything the United States has done which is bad. And unfortunately, this is all the history education the average voter has.

speeder 13y ago
Here in Brazil even the black slavery part is propaganda, using half truths and exaggerations to portray slavery as result of monarchy and monarchy as absolute evil. Professional historians already found out that slavery here is not a black and white issue, but also found that the republican government made law that schools were to teach anti-monarchy propaganda, even if it meant using half-truths about how slavery worked here.
- Camillo 13y ago
  As far as I know, the last Brazilian emperor Pedro II fought against slavery all his life, and slavery was abolished during his reign. At which point the rich planters turned to republicanism and instigated a military coup that deposed the emperor and made Brazil a republic. I find it amazing that republican propaganda would attempt to blame the monarchy for slavery!
  - speeder 13y ago
    Yes, but they do... Here, schools are obliged to teach that who abolished slavery was Princess Isabel, like if she was some sort of heroine and the emperor had nothing to do with it, also all the other anti-slavery laws he passed, are usually dismissed (for example, one of the laws the emperor passed was prohibiting the slavery of children of slaves, schools here dismiss that law by saying that it is so impratical that noone would obey anyway, without even giving proof if people obeyed or not). Also, several of the things done in the first years of the republic were for example rename streets and parks that had any relation to the monarchy or slavery (even if it had to do with slavery abolition)... During the school I (and everyone else I asked) was taught that Emperor Pedro I independence was shit because he did not abolished slavery with it, and thus if existed non-free people the country was not free at all and still a pawn of Portugal (as with one thing had to do with the other), and all school books give much emphasis on how slavery was not abolished during the independence... I even saw one book that teach (Wrongly) that during US independence they abolished slavery, as a sort of "proof" of how true republics are inherently better because they get rid of slavery. Also, NONE of the history books mention slave demograhics, and only teach about plantation slavery (that was really akin to US slavery), I don't found a single school book that mentions other forms of slavery (like voluntary indentured servitude), or urban slavery (that in Brazil was the majority, despite most of the free population living in rural areas), or that only 1% of the slaves were actually chained into the infamous "Senzalas" (plantation slave barracks) that he books teach so much about (all history books explain of all evils of the "Senzalas"). Also, not one single book mention who broughts the slaves here in first place (it was not white people... the brazillian first generation slaves were almost all war prisioners or imprisoned criminals that africans came here to sell... Yes, they came here, many people believe portuguese bought the slaves at Africa, this of course happened, but was not the normal course of action, black slavers came to Brazil in portuguese ships, bringing the slaves they wanted to sell here). Also most school books here don't talk at all about Pedro II technology achievements for example (even in Campinas where I lived most of my life, people don't know that most of public colleges there were made by decree of Pedro II, neither they know that Campinas was the second city in the world to have a telephone system, that Pedro II in person brought there after visiting Mr. Bell in the US during his vacation).
pyre 13y ago
It is this way. I think largely in part due to the way that the textbooks and curriculums are put together. It all seems to funnel through some group in Texas for 'approval,' IIRC. I'll bet that sticking to much about the bad things that America has done. Anecdote time: 1) I remember reading about what US did to the Native Americans, but I remember it being rather dry reading. It was presented more as a series of facts rather than, "this was an evil thing that we shouldn't do again." "Oh yea, by the way, all of the women and children were slaughtered. Moving on..." 2) We never discussed anything more recent than maybe WW2 in history. The only exception here is that in high school you could choose, Pre- or Post-Civil War US History. I ended up choosing pre-Civil War. 3) One of my history teachers in 7th or 8th grade would add some flavor to the texts. Things like disagreeing with the book's assertions that Ben Franklin modelled the Contintental Congress after Native American political organization. His assertion was that the Native Americans were seen as inferior, so even if there was influence from them, it wasn't conscious, or openly admitted to.
- Yhippa 13y ago
  From what I understand Texas and California have the most school districts and buy the most textbooks so what goes for them goes for the rest of the country.
lightcatcher 13y ago
I'm studying applied math at an almost exclusively STEM college. I've taken one history class (European history from 1300-1600) and will not be taking any others. However, I wouldn't consider my public history education to be "largely a lot of propaganda". I did take the advanced (AP) history courses at a public high school in Texas, and I might have just been lucky and great teachers, but my teachers discussed: -British/US troops infecting Native Americans with smallpox by giving them infected blankets -Trail of Tears and how Andrew Jackson was generally pretty horrible to Native Americans -Wounded Knee Massacre, and in general how much we (as Americans) screwed over the native people -a little bit about eugenics in the US -Watergate scandal -showed us a documentary about how Walmart achieves such low prices by brutal business practices (and has hurt many American companies by moving production to China) in addition to your points above. I don't feel like my history education (solely from public school) was "largely a lot of propaganda".
- rjbwork 13y ago
  AP is a whole different best for any class, much less history! I took AP US and non-AP World history in high school. The depth and breadth of material covered was just ridiculously, obscenely different between the two. I'm not sure what graduating high school even means these days if you don't have a bunch of AP credits, but it certainly doesn't make you an informed citizen with basic competencies.
- freetospeak 13y ago
  One of your examples is about a private business. All but one of the others describe simply the brutality of colonization. It wouldn't be good propaganda if it looks 100% squeaky clean. Think about what meaningful questions are left unanswered. Why is it that any serious examination of the US' covert wars across the world is skipped entirely? Why is the entire era 1945-1991 painted in communist vs capitalist terms? The US participation in WW2 is reduced to "we saved europe and asia from hitler and japanese imperialism". The overarching theme is of American moral superiority, unassailable founding principles, and a government by the people, for the people. None of those are true, and I am thankful we live in an age when access to the writings of accurate historians is just a click away for those who care enough to discover.
Yhippa 13y ago
This was the case for me. We spent most of our time reading about the civil war in elementary school. Not the policy part either but more about all of the activities of the war and battles. Post that it was mostly "Western Civilization" meaning Antiquity and European and American history. The only time I really got to study about the rest of the world was in a semester-long class that was optional! My AP History class was the closest thing that delved into the negative aspects of US history. I really didn't start questioning things until I read Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel" shortly after graduating college.
dragontamer 13y ago
Here's what I learned in history class: * Civil Rights Movement * Jim Crow Laws * Trail of Tears * Vietnam War * LA Riots / Rodney King * Great Depression * Chicago Fire * WWII Internment Camps / War Propaganda * Bay of Pigs in Cuba * Other failed Coups in South America * Sherman's March to the Sea * "The Jungle" (disgusting food) * Child Labor * Growth of Monopolies * Haymarket massacre What the were YOU doing in school? Mine was mostly a public education, so... plenty of "US mistakes" taught throughout US history from my perspective. Plenty of good and bad in history. Middle School was mostly basic stuff, borderline propaganda from my memory. (But LA Riots were in fact covered in Middle School, perhaps because they were more "current events" rather than "history" at that point in time). But High School was filled with "TRUTH", in depth analysis and so forth. It was quite eye opening from my perspective. My High School US History class didn't cover "modern US History" however, and stopped in the late 50s. "Modern US History" was an elective at my high school... so my knowledge past the 50s becomes a bit incomplete. The school cop even ensured a visit to many classes, to describe the rights of citizens in the state. Along the lines of: "In this state, you have the right to know a Cop's identity. If he refuses, take down the number on his car. Here's the police number where you can complain about this stuff". Very specific advice on how to cooperate, and if necessary, complain, about cops. I know this was unusual and probably specific to the school cop who was assigned to my school. He was African American "and proud of it", to describe his attitude. (may have contributed to his emphasis on teaching citizens rights).

by mmagin 13y ago

speeder 13y ago

Here in Brazil even the black slavery part is propaganda, using half truths and exaggerations to portray slavery as result of monarchy and monarchy as absolute evil. Professional historians already found out that slavery here is not a black and white issue, but also found that the republican government made law that schools were to teach anti-monarchy propaganda, even if it meant using half-truths about how slavery worked here.

Camillo 13y ago
As far as I know, the last Brazilian emperor Pedro II fought against slavery all his life, and slavery was abolished during his reign. At which point the rich planters turned to republicanism and instigated a military coup that deposed the emperor and made Brazil a republic. I find it amazing that republican propaganda would attempt to blame the monarchy for slavery!
- speeder 13y ago
  Yes, but they do... Here, schools are obliged to teach that who abolished slavery was Princess Isabel, like if she was some sort of heroine and the emperor had nothing to do with it, also all the other anti-slavery laws he passed, are usually dismissed (for example, one of the laws the emperor passed was prohibiting the slavery of children of slaves, schools here dismiss that law by saying that it is so impratical that noone would obey anyway, without even giving proof if people obeyed or not). Also, several of the things done in the first years of the republic were for example rename streets and parks that had any relation to the monarchy or slavery (even if it had to do with slavery abolition)... During the school I (and everyone else I asked) was taught that Emperor Pedro I independence was shit because he did not abolished slavery with it, and thus if existed non-free people the country was not free at all and still a pawn of Portugal (as with one thing had to do with the other), and all school books give much emphasis on how slavery was not abolished during the independence... I even saw one book that teach (Wrongly) that during US independence they abolished slavery, as a sort of "proof" of how true republics are inherently better because they get rid of slavery. Also, NONE of the history books mention slave demograhics, and only teach about plantation slavery (that was really akin to US slavery), I don't found a single school book that mentions other forms of slavery (like voluntary indentured servitude), or urban slavery (that in Brazil was the majority, despite most of the free population living in rural areas), or that only 1% of the slaves were actually chained into the infamous "Senzalas" (plantation slave barracks) that he books teach so much about (all history books explain of all evils of the "Senzalas"). Also, not one single book mention who broughts the slaves here in first place (it was not white people... the brazillian first generation slaves were almost all war prisioners or imprisoned criminals that africans came here to sell... Yes, they came here, many people believe portuguese bought the slaves at Africa, this of course happened, but was not the normal course of action, black slavers came to Brazil in portuguese ships, bringing the slaves they wanted to sell here). Also most school books here don't talk at all about Pedro II technology achievements for example (even in Campinas where I lived most of my life, people don't know that most of public colleges there were made by decree of Pedro II, neither they know that Campinas was the second city in the world to have a telephone system, that Pedro II in person brought there after visiting Mr. Bell in the US during his vacation).

pyre 13y ago

It is this way. I think largely in part due to the way that the textbooks and curriculums are put together. It all seems to funnel through some group in Texas for 'approval,' IIRC. I'll bet that sticking to much about the bad things that America has done. Anecdote time: 1) I remember reading about what US did to the Native Americans, but I remember it being rather dry reading. It was presented more as a series of facts rather than, "this was an evil thing that we shouldn't do again." "Oh yea, by the way, all of the women and children were slaughtered. Moving on..." 2) We never discussed anything more recent than maybe WW2 in history. The only exception here is that in high school you could choose, Pre- or Post-Civil War US History. I ended up choosing pre-Civil War. 3) One of my history teachers in 7th or 8th grade would add some flavor to the texts. Things like disagreeing with the book's assertions that Ben Franklin modelled the Contintental Congress after Native American political organization. His assertion was that the Native Americans were seen as inferior, so even if there was influence from them, it wasn't conscious, or openly admitted to.

Yhippa 13y ago
From what I understand Texas and California have the most school districts and buy the most textbooks so what goes for them goes for the rest of the country.

lightcatcher 13y ago

I'm studying applied math at an almost exclusively STEM college. I've taken one history class (European history from 1300-1600) and will not be taking any others. However, I wouldn't consider my public history education to be "largely a lot of propaganda". I did take the advanced (AP) history courses at a public high school in Texas, and I might have just been lucky and great teachers, but my teachers discussed: -British/US troops infecting Native Americans with smallpox by giving them infected blankets -Trail of Tears and how Andrew Jackson was generally pretty horrible to Native Americans -Wounded Knee Massacre, and in general how much we (as Americans) screwed over the native people -a little bit about eugenics in the US -Watergate scandal -showed us a documentary about how Walmart achieves such low prices by brutal business practices (and has hurt many American companies by moving production to China) in addition to your points above. I don't feel like my history education (solely from public school) was "largely a lot of propaganda".

rjbwork 13y ago
AP is a whole different best for any class, much less history! I took AP US and non-AP World history in high school. The depth and breadth of material covered was just ridiculously, obscenely different between the two. I'm not sure what graduating high school even means these days if you don't have a bunch of AP credits, but it certainly doesn't make you an informed citizen with basic competencies.
freetospeak 13y ago
One of your examples is about a private business. All but one of the others describe simply the brutality of colonization. It wouldn't be good propaganda if it looks 100% squeaky clean. Think about what meaningful questions are left unanswered. Why is it that any serious examination of the US' covert wars across the world is skipped entirely? Why is the entire era 1945-1991 painted in communist vs capitalist terms? The US participation in WW2 is reduced to "we saved europe and asia from hitler and japanese imperialism". The overarching theme is of American moral superiority, unassailable founding principles, and a government by the people, for the people. None of those are true, and I am thankful we live in an age when access to the writings of accurate historians is just a click away for those who care enough to discover.

Yhippa 13y ago

This was the case for me. We spent most of our time reading about the civil war in elementary school. Not the policy part either but more about all of the activities of the war and battles. Post that it was mostly "Western Civilization" meaning Antiquity and European and American history. The only time I really got to study about the rest of the world was in a semester-long class that was optional! My AP History class was the closest thing that delved into the negative aspects of US history. I really didn't start questioning things until I read Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel" shortly after graduating college.

dragontamer 13y ago

Here's what I learned in history class: * Civil Rights Movement * Jim Crow Laws * Trail of Tears * Vietnam War * LA Riots / Rodney King * Great Depression * Chicago Fire * WWII Internment Camps / War Propaganda * Bay of Pigs in Cuba * Other failed Coups in South America * Sherman's March to the Sea * "The Jungle" (disgusting food) * Child Labor * Growth of Monopolies * Haymarket massacre What the were YOU doing in school? Mine was mostly a public education, so... plenty of "US mistakes" taught throughout US history from my perspective. Plenty of good and bad in history. Middle School was mostly basic stuff, borderline propaganda from my memory. (But LA Riots were in fact covered in Middle School, perhaps because they were more "current events" rather than "history" at that point in time). But High School was filled with "TRUTH", in depth analysis and so forth. It was quite eye opening from my perspective. My High School US History class didn't cover "modern US History" however, and stopped in the late 50s. "Modern US History" was an elective at my high school... so my knowledge past the 50s becomes a bit incomplete. The school cop even ensured a visit to many classes, to describe the rights of citizens in the state. Along the lines of: "In this state, you have the right to know a Cop's identity. If he refuses, take down the number on his car. Here's the police number where you can complain about this stuff". Very specific advice on how to cooperate, and if necessary, complain, about cops. I know this was unusual and probably specific to the school cop who was assigned to my school. He was African American "and proud of it", to describe his attitude. (may have contributed to his emphasis on teaching citizens rights).