jump to last post 1-10 of 10 discussions (12 posts)

Ho much does teaching the same Events in History change from country to country?

91
Docmoposted 5 years ago
Ho much does teaching the same Events in History change from country to country?

Events in history that would've made logical sense at their time can be completely unacceptable by todays standards - do we edit those unpleasantnesses out or teach them factually so as to ensure we dont make those same errors again in civilisation? Equally do countries alter the events for propaganda?

reply report
76
fpherj48posted 5 years ago
Docmo....Very interesting and thought-provoking question. I'm going to say that I'm sure events in History do change from country to country...perhaps even stories within the same country, but different AREAS...(I'm thinking of our North and South?)
The content & context of a history book would seem to depend on so many variables.....The author: How well-researched he/she is and of course, the source of this research, An authors stand or point of view on certain incidents within an Historical Saga.
Unless a History book is written to teach young children, I would not justify omitting vital statistics, unpleasant details or hard core facts of reality. History is what it is....rather WAS. Altering, omitting or any type of "personal" input from an author that steers too far from the facts, is pointless.
Let's assume that a book will be written one day by A Syrian Rebel....and one by a Syrian Dictator......I'll make a wild assumption, these historical tales will be BEYOND different............Did I answer this "A-OK" in terms of your question??
reply report
1. 91
  Docmoposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  you answered more than A-Ok . Erudite and enlightening, Paula!
  reply report
79
whonunuwhoposted 5 years ago
What passes as historical fact in one country, is often altered or totally ignored in another one. This is true, especially if these two or more countries were at odds in a war or just in a political issue. It would, indeed be wonderful if we could tell it as the truth and not alter or change what may occur, and yes if everyone were on the same page and respected others as they should be, perhaps we should have learned our lessons many years in the past after making so many blunders worldwide.
reply report
58
qeylerposted 5 years ago
Depends on the grundnorm of a nation. The U.S. has the 'revolutionary war' which they fought and won against G.B. In G.B. it's viewed as a rebellion of some colonists against loyal colonists. Muslim nations see the jihads they waged in Africa as bringing Islam to the benefit of the people. Many of the people there see an invasion and destruction of culture.

Depends on what side one is on.
reply report
83
Shadesbreathposted 5 years ago
I think history always gets conscripted to fit the agendas of those presently in power (which can include rival groups competing for power). Only the truly curious look deeper than what they get from the prevailing institutions and seek to refine what they "know" with other versions—from other countries' perspectives and from other periods in time as well. I am endlessly disappointed by the number of people I meet who are simply incapable of putting history in context. It's frustrating, and frightening when, at least in the U.S., you realize that those sorts of people get to vote, much less get to have a say in the making of policy.
reply report
1. 91
  Docmoposted 5 years agoin reply to this
  I share your frustration, shadesbreath. I don't think this is unique to US - such ignorance of factual history is all pervasive. Spin and obfuscation is the norm.
  reply report
59
edmob1posted 5 years ago
If we take the view history is written by the victor then it is that view which is taught. What I like about ancient history pre-BC is the victors have long been vanquished. So when you get a decent line of written record you can actually see how the sucessive victors have tried to detract form each others history.
reply report
80
Pavlo Badovskyyposted 5 years ago
As long as we live in different countries, the view on the same event will be different. You almost have no chance to be absolutely independent judging about any event because you base on material intepreted by this or that researcher. You can not be sure that these events were described without prejustice or under no political influence.
reply report
0
Panzer Kumarposted 5 years ago
In simple words "History is written by the victor" and so history that is read by most people or nations are not necessarily correct and accurate. Just for instance we democratic nations read and believe in a different cold war history than what the then soviet Union or today's Russians read.

And when speaking of world war 2: we all say Germany made aggressions while today's Germans would say Nazis made aggressions. But the reality is what the Germans say and read. For it was the Nazis and Hitler who damaged and killed, its not Germans on the whole.

Having said that, History is the most complected and inaccurate subject and the error is not within history but with writers who write it with their own feelings and beliefs, which strains history with their impact rather than impact of truth.
reply report
73
austinhealyposted 5 years ago
A lot probably. I do read, almost on a daily basis at least 3 sources of information (newspapers websites) from the internet : one or two in the US, same in England, and another one or two in France. I am always amazed at how the reporting can be different and very often I feel different papers are not commenting on the same event. So I imagine history, which is basically yesterday's news, follows the same pattern.
reply report
91
tamarawilhiteposted 5 years ago
Every group teaches history from their own perspective. Persia and Greece fought a series of wars. From the Greek side, victory was amazing and saved civilization. From Persia's side, it was a horrific embarrassment. Same events, different perspectives. The events are fixed, while the interpretations are fluid.
reply report