![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
History as we are taught it
In 'Thought Experiments' issues 2, Genava Melzack is discussing the reasons why people study history. Several reasons were suggested by herself and her friends:
1. We study history to learn from our past mistakes.
2. We study history inotder to know where we came from and thus to know ourselves better.
3. We study history in otder to learn about human nature.
I would argue that for most people, none of the above are true.
My hypothesis is that we study history in order to reinforce our desired image of ourselves as a nation. In this hypothesis, I may be partly deviating from Geneva's original intent as I'm focusing largely on what governments desire us to learn, but the history we choose to study for ourselves is also often chosen to reinforce our prefered image of ourselves.
I was collecting information from other Livejournallers on what they had studied at school and it was generally reinforcing my hypotheses, when along came a news item that demonstrated it perfectly.
In Russia, a history book by Igor Dolutsky recently lost its licence from the Ministry of Education, as it mentioned among other things the crimes perpetuated by the Soviet era against millions of Russian citizens, and the participation of Allied forces in WW2 (didn't you know Russia won the war single-handed?).
Putin's directive to historians stated: 'Textbooks should provide historical facts, and they must cultivate a sense of pride among youth in their history and country.'
In China, there have been similar moves to whitewash history. Chinese school history texts fail to mention the 1979 invasion of Vietnam, the 1989 crackdown on democracy, or the 30 million Chinese who starved to death during the 'Great Leap Forward'. Ironically, there have been protests in China regarding a new Japanese history book that omits details such as the Chinese women forced into sexual slavery by the Japanese during the war.
Are Western democracies any better in what they teach their children? No. We too bias our history to fit Putin's directive perfectly.
Let's look at a few examples.
A friend of mine said to me recently: "We were on the wrong side in World War II and we lost." I told him he was crazy.
He replied that we went to war to defend Poland when it was invaded by Germany. After the war, we gave Poland to Russia. Ergo, we lost as we did not achieve what we had joined the war to do.
We sided against Hitler who massacred 6 million people. We sided against Stalin who massacred 20-30 million (deliberate death by starvation still counts as massacre).
I had to admit that my friend had a point. The way we in Britain are taught the history of WW2 tends to gloss over the facts that we betrayed Poland and our responsibility for the deaths of the one million Soviet prisoners that we forcibly repatriated (we knew what might happen to them).
American history books have their own slant (didn't you know America won the war single-handed?) and we all know what American movies about WWII do by way of blatently distorting history.
Australian history doesn't win the war single-handed, but focuses heavily on the Gallipoli landings which is where the greatest involvement of the ANZAC troops was.
No nation comes out well on the history study.
The main eras studied in the UK appear to be Egypt (ancient of course - none of those Islamic people to confuse things), Greece, Rome (because we see their civilisations as precursors to our own and they are regarded as very civilised. If you regard demcracy as important, then you focus on where it first developed). The Norman conquest (possibly because historians so love the Domesday book - we can trace your village to nearly a thousand years ago - we're a very old culture). The Magna Carta (look, our democracy is older than yours). Elizabethans (Britannia rules the waves - we have better explorers and navies than anyone else). The Tudors and the War of the Roses (Haven't quite worked that one out yet, but I'm open to suggestions). The Civil War (we're very democratic as Parliament won, but we're also kind to monarchs as long as they don't want too much power). The industrial revolution (everything useful was invented in Britain and we industrialised first). American war of Independence (but not in too much detail and making sure we know that lots of Americans were loyal to the crown). French Revolution (you can't trust the French, they guillotine aristocrats and murder lots of people - long live the Scarlet Pimpernel!) WWI + WWII (We won)
I had a flash of hope when![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
cobrabay said he'd done some modern Chinese history, but a quick check of the dates confirmed that he'd only done safe stuff well after the Opium Wars were history. (The Opium Wars can briefly be summed up as Britain fighting a war to be allowed to sell massive quantities of opium to Chinese drug addicts as we were making a massive profit out of it. This at a time when opium use was outlawed in England.)
Other periods that we never study: the Boer War (Britain invents the concentration camp); colonisation of sub-Saharan Africa (a lot of very underhand stuff); the 1812 war with America (apart from the bit where we're protecting Canada - our impressing American sailors seems to get missed out)
On the other hand, Americans (certainly some of them) are, of course, taught about British colonisation, not just of sub-Saharan Africa, but also about the British in China and the Opium Wars and India under the British (see, the British are evil bastards, colonilism is evil and we were proud freedom fighters when we kicked them out) They'll also get the War of Independence, the US Civil War (of course, it was all fought to end slavery, you know), the industrial revolution (everything useful was invented in America and we industrialised first), WWI and WWII (America won).
Sadly, America too has missing chunks. I had a flash of hope whenredstarrobot said she'd done South and Central American history, but it was all about the Aztecs, Incas, etc. (we've got some old civilisation too, so sucks to Europe). Nothing about more recent history and the CIA's role in setting up repressive dictatorships. Nothing about the invasion of Canada.
Are Australians any better?
The older Australians in particular had a very Eurocentric version of history (we've got more history than the Aborigines and we've brought our culture with us including the Greeks and the Romans) They get the explorers of Australia, European, Dutch and British (this continent was discovered by brave, heroic men and there wasn't really anyone here before they discovered it). Then there's the inland explorers and the early settlers (no one used to have convicts as ancestors, but it's more fashionable now to have at least one in the family tree as eveyone knows the English courts would transport people for trivial crimes). They used to jump straight from there to Gallipoli (we suffered, but we won a pyrrhic victory), but now Australia is allowed some modern history (see, we're democratic too).
As Australia develops much closer political and economic links with Indonesia, Australian school children have discovered, to their surprise, that Indonesia has a history too.
Aborigines? Who are they? (this isn't their country - it's ours! We found it.)
This is an extremely potted version of what we are taught at school and I'd liketo thankgreengolux, kat_erine, cobrabay, temeres, reapermum, wychwood, lexin, mistraltoes, redstarrobot, sallymn, hawkeye7 and kerravonsen for their input on their respective countries. The information was theirs, the interpretation and sarky comments are all mine.
I'll finish with a story my husband told me. I haven't been able to track down a reference to know if it is true or false. He said that in a private document, Churchill wrote what he could never say in public. We lost the war.
1. We study history to learn from our past mistakes.
2. We study history inotder to know where we came from and thus to know ourselves better.
3. We study history in otder to learn about human nature.
I would argue that for most people, none of the above are true.
My hypothesis is that we study history in order to reinforce our desired image of ourselves as a nation. In this hypothesis, I may be partly deviating from Geneva's original intent as I'm focusing largely on what governments desire us to learn, but the history we choose to study for ourselves is also often chosen to reinforce our prefered image of ourselves.
I was collecting information from other Livejournallers on what they had studied at school and it was generally reinforcing my hypotheses, when along came a news item that demonstrated it perfectly.
In Russia, a history book by Igor Dolutsky recently lost its licence from the Ministry of Education, as it mentioned among other things the crimes perpetuated by the Soviet era against millions of Russian citizens, and the participation of Allied forces in WW2 (didn't you know Russia won the war single-handed?).
Putin's directive to historians stated: 'Textbooks should provide historical facts, and they must cultivate a sense of pride among youth in their history and country.'
In China, there have been similar moves to whitewash history. Chinese school history texts fail to mention the 1979 invasion of Vietnam, the 1989 crackdown on democracy, or the 30 million Chinese who starved to death during the 'Great Leap Forward'. Ironically, there have been protests in China regarding a new Japanese history book that omits details such as the Chinese women forced into sexual slavery by the Japanese during the war.
Are Western democracies any better in what they teach their children? No. We too bias our history to fit Putin's directive perfectly.
Let's look at a few examples.
A friend of mine said to me recently: "We were on the wrong side in World War II and we lost." I told him he was crazy.
He replied that we went to war to defend Poland when it was invaded by Germany. After the war, we gave Poland to Russia. Ergo, we lost as we did not achieve what we had joined the war to do.
We sided against Hitler who massacred 6 million people. We sided against Stalin who massacred 20-30 million (deliberate death by starvation still counts as massacre).
I had to admit that my friend had a point. The way we in Britain are taught the history of WW2 tends to gloss over the facts that we betrayed Poland and our responsibility for the deaths of the one million Soviet prisoners that we forcibly repatriated (we knew what might happen to them).
American history books have their own slant (didn't you know America won the war single-handed?) and we all know what American movies about WWII do by way of blatently distorting history.
Australian history doesn't win the war single-handed, but focuses heavily on the Gallipoli landings which is where the greatest involvement of the ANZAC troops was.
No nation comes out well on the history study.
The main eras studied in the UK appear to be Egypt (ancient of course - none of those Islamic people to confuse things), Greece, Rome (because we see their civilisations as precursors to our own and they are regarded as very civilised. If you regard demcracy as important, then you focus on where it first developed). The Norman conquest (possibly because historians so love the Domesday book - we can trace your village to nearly a thousand years ago - we're a very old culture). The Magna Carta (look, our democracy is older than yours). Elizabethans (Britannia rules the waves - we have better explorers and navies than anyone else). The Tudors and the War of the Roses (Haven't quite worked that one out yet, but I'm open to suggestions). The Civil War (we're very democratic as Parliament won, but we're also kind to monarchs as long as they don't want too much power). The industrial revolution (everything useful was invented in Britain and we industrialised first). American war of Independence (but not in too much detail and making sure we know that lots of Americans were loyal to the crown). French Revolution (you can't trust the French, they guillotine aristocrats and murder lots of people - long live the Scarlet Pimpernel!) WWI + WWII (We won)
I had a flash of hope when
cobrabay said he'd done some modern Chinese history, but a quick check of the dates confirmed that he'd only done safe stuff well after the Opium Wars were history. (The Opium Wars can briefly be summed up as Britain fighting a war to be allowed to sell massive quantities of opium to Chinese drug addicts as we were making a massive profit out of it. This at a time when opium use was outlawed in England.)Other periods that we never study: the Boer War (Britain invents the concentration camp); colonisation of sub-Saharan Africa (a lot of very underhand stuff); the 1812 war with America (apart from the bit where we're protecting Canada - our impressing American sailors seems to get missed out)
On the other hand, Americans (certainly some of them) are, of course, taught about British colonisation, not just of sub-Saharan Africa, but also about the British in China and the Opium Wars and India under the British (see, the British are evil bastards, colonilism is evil and we were proud freedom fighters when we kicked them out) They'll also get the War of Independence, the US Civil War (of course, it was all fought to end slavery, you know), the industrial revolution (everything useful was invented in America and we industrialised first), WWI and WWII (America won).
Sadly, America too has missing chunks. I had a flash of hope when
redstarrobot said she'd done South and Central American history, but it was all about the Aztecs, Incas, etc. (we've got some old civilisation too, so sucks to Europe). Nothing about more recent history and the CIA's role in setting up repressive dictatorships. Nothing about the invasion of Canada.Are Australians any better?
The older Australians in particular had a very Eurocentric version of history (we've got more history than the Aborigines and we've brought our culture with us including the Greeks and the Romans) They get the explorers of Australia, European, Dutch and British (this continent was discovered by brave, heroic men and there wasn't really anyone here before they discovered it). Then there's the inland explorers and the early settlers (no one used to have convicts as ancestors, but it's more fashionable now to have at least one in the family tree as eveyone knows the English courts would transport people for trivial crimes). They used to jump straight from there to Gallipoli (we suffered, but we won a pyrrhic victory), but now Australia is allowed some modern history (see, we're democratic too).
As Australia develops much closer political and economic links with Indonesia, Australian school children have discovered, to their surprise, that Indonesia has a history too.
Aborigines? Who are they? (this isn't their country - it's ours! We found it.)
This is an extremely potted version of what we are taught at school and I'd liketo thank
greengolux, kat_erine, cobrabay, temeres, reapermum, wychwood, lexin, mistraltoes, redstarrobot, sallymn, hawkeye7 and kerravonsen for their input on their respective countries. The information was theirs, the interpretation and sarky comments are all mine.I'll finish with a story my husband told me. I haven't been able to track down a reference to know if it is true or false. He said that in a private document, Churchill wrote what he could never say in public. We lost the war.
no subject
no subject
We see history through so many imposed filters that it's hard to realise how little we know. We don't even realise how *much* we don't know.
We're all parochial in how we view the world. Even when we think we're enlightened, there are countries we know virtually nothing about.
I no longer know which side was worse, but I'm trying to question the view I was taught simply because I know that 'history' is often an attempt to make our own actions seem justified.
No one is evil in their own eyes.
no subject
So, yes, Russia being praised for defeating Hitler pisses me off... I really do *not* like the fact that their invasion of my country, as well as (the successful invasion of) Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are being brushed under the carpet, even now the politicians have to pretend that this crap never existed. I'm not a hardcore nationalist, but I would like to have Karelia back, as it really is mostly a Finnish area and the Russians are basically using it a place to dump their toxic waste in. :(.
no subject
We can tell. Let's see if we can get the events back into the correct order:
1939: After the British and the French turn down Soviet overtures to band together to stop Hitler, the Russians conclude a secret treaty with the Germans. This treaty cedes Russia the old 1914 frontiers. When Germany invades Poland (and looks like winning), the Soviets invade eastern Poland. (The Germans actually have to pull back to the treaty line.) Russia anexes Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Moldavia, in accordance withe the treaty. Russia then demands Karelia from Finland. [Who claims what is murky here. A treaty between Sweden and Russia in 1323 divided the area between them. Then in 1721, Sweden ceded the lot after losing a long war with Russia. After another war between Sweden and Russia in 1809, Sweden ceded Finland too. Finland became a semi-independent country within the Russian Empire. Russia also incorporated some of its old Karelia into Finland. Finland becomes independent in 1917 and new borders were drawn which Russia didn't like much.] Finland turns Russia down and a war starts which is usually called The Winter War. Finland fights well. Due to geography, Britain and France cannot help easily. An expedition is assembled but before it gets going...
1940: Finland throws in the towel and cedes lands including part of Karelia to the Soviet Union in March. The British and French were coming and this triggers a German invasion of Norway in April. Norway is occupied.
1941: Germany invades the Soviet Union in June. Not all of its allies join in but Finland does! It grabs back the lands ceded to Russia in 1940. Germany fights the Russians in Russian, Finnish and ultimately Norweigian Lapland. A German army also fights alongside the Finns in Karelia.
1944: With Germany on the ropes, Finland sues for peace. The 1940 frontier is restored. Although the peace treaty requires German troops in Finland to be interned, the Finns allow them to leave unmolested.
Most neighbouring countries rightly regard Finland as lucky not to have been occupied and as having gotten off very lightly.
Although Finland is a model state in this regard today, it's treatment of linguistic minorities in the past is nothing I'd be trumpeting.
Also, having travelled around Karelia, I am astonished at the notion that it is the Russain part that is spoiled. On the contrary, it looked very much like the Finnish part was the spolied part. This was especially notable from the air where the border was a straight line. Forests Russian side. No forests Finnish side. Much of Russian karelia is ike in a time warp. They have not done a thing since 1940.
no subject
Oh, and did you know the damn Germans burned everything they could while withdrawing from Finland? Burning down all of Lapland? That really wasn't easy. They destroyed a shitload of stuff up here. I wouldn't call that "lucky" because we weren't occupied--they buggered up the place completely. We were in a damn difficult position whilst wanting to retain the Finnish-speaking parts (like the 1917 borders), and had to choose between two evils struggling against each other because we share a border with Russia.
I do happen to know a lot about this stuff--losing Karelia was a big damn blow. And I HAVE visited Karelia, and so has my grandfather who was born in Karelia, and the place is a *mess* from the Finnish POV. I don't like the fact that Finns cut down forests, no, I do prefer old forests the way they are.
Please read up on your Finnish history--I did because I am a Finn and do care about my heritage, and have also read our history and studied all possible viewpoints. We *never* started a war with Russia, they did in fact blow some gunshots around the border, blamed it on us, and thus "justified" trying to take Finland over again. Even (some enlightened) Russians admit this today. They set it up--both the Winter War and especially the Continuation War.
It's disgusting what's happened to all the beautiful architechture in Viipuri (Vyborg, or whatever it's in English--my grandpa's birth town) and how there are starving children in the streets and the crime rate is high--even when Finns have offered help (for restoration, and humanitarian aid), time and time again the money has somehow disappeared when it's crossed the border, and the humanitarian aid has not gone through. And that cannot be blamed on the Finns, but the crap way Russians are "organising"(hah!) things.
No, I really don't like it when a part that's essentially Finnish being ruined by Russians governing it the way they usually do--full of corruption and bribery and greed, not giving a toss about human rights, especially those of women and children. It makes me pretty damn pissed off.
Sorry, but I DO KNOW about these things, living here and knowing my history and seeing what happens across the border each day. The Russians have fucked Karelia up big time.
no subject
It was more that "we went to war because we finally decided sooner or later we were going to have to stop him..." Whether 'we' was right or wrong is another point.