Anne Frank in North Korea

[Myrrdin]

Well... I'm not sure that the countries in close proximity to "the East" view them as totally alien. At least the countries around the baltic sea have a pretty good and neighbourly relationship.

And I'm quite sure I learned quite a bit of the history of Lithuania, Latvia and Poland aswell as pre Soviet Russia when I went to school. Lots more than I learned of the history of countries like Spain, Italy or The Netherlands for that matter. But that's pretty natural, seeing as the history of Sweden has been intertwined with the histories of the baltic countries for centuries.

'S maybe not so strange that Sweden was one of the driving countries in favour of the Baltic countries entering the EU.

 

[Wooz]

Sander, I don't think I would call it "Americanized History". It's not like America is the only factor for hiding some of History's aspects. Every country has things it wants to hide, or at least to make less obvious.

Take the Algerian war, in which France tried to repress the Algerians from emancipating. Little is told in school manuals about the atrocities commited there, as well as the "details" of the Indochina war.

Take the assassination of Gen. Sobieski, who died in an "airplane accident", because he'd oppose the Yalta border re-definition.

 

[John Uskglass]

Yep. But it's not the point. I can call the capitalist world the West as well. The point is that everyone in Western Europe views Eastern Europe as seperate, and alien. This image has been created by the "Americanized history" which has been taught in schools for decades, now. If you call the Communist countries the east, then you're being fair. If you call the East communist or alien, or completely ignore it in history, then you're being stupid...

Total bullshit. Prejudice in history did not start with America..just read some Anna Comnena.
And, unlike you French and Belgian buddies, we teach about all the horrible things America did. As a matter of fact, I hated gradeschool primarily because I always fealt like the enemy every Febuary.

 

[Wooz]

Hm. CC, were you taught in school about Vietnam's Agent Orange, how the US military tested A-bomb radiation effects on human beings (infantry troops), the sabotage of the "Mercosur" treaty infrastructure, US support of Pol-Pot... (etc)?

I certainly didn't learn that kind of stuff in school.

 

[John Uskglass]

Not the testing radiaton, but everything else, yeah, actually we did.

But we also dedicate an entire month to listening to imbicilic obese mothers talking about the great civilizations of Africa, and how the Europeans are the only reason Africa is no longer dominant at anything besdies AIDS infection. Of course, most of them where Muslim, so it is IMPOSSIBLE to talk about how great Axum or Nubia where.

EDIT: Note this is not as rascist as it sounds. I am just tired of hearing how great the Asante where, when they wherent, when we learn nothing about Nubia or Axum, because of this weird fetish to live up to Edward Said's wet dream of education (ONLY WHITE GUYS DO BAD THINGS!)

Not to mention some of the bullshit we learn about the Native Americans. "White guys kill natives, push them away". Not that simple...

You have to realize the kind of people who teach especially high school level history. I am out of those classes now (thank God for the UofC!), but most of the time these teachers where of the Social Democratic wing of the Democratic party, and typically fairly devoutly granola as well.

 

[Brother None]

Total bullshit. Prejudice in history did not start with America..just read some Anna Comnena.

Too true. But as one of the victors of WW 2, the US and USSR have been the biggest influences in Western-Eastern interrelations since then, and maybe a bit before then.

And, unlike you French and Belgian buddies, we teach about all the horrible things America did. As a matter of fact, I hated gradeschool primarily because I always fealt like the enemy every Febuary.

"You're not aware of anything you haven't been taught" or the historical perspective of the victor. Who writes history? A la...the victor. So who comes out best? The victor

This is not becvause the victor misrepresents history, necessarily, it is mostly because he's the victor, and thus his valious prevail in our society. So the loser's morals and values were "evil", "wrong", somehow inherently inferior to that of the victor.

Victims of this way of looking at history? Well, since we're near the subject; the Ottoman Empire, colonial Europe, south-US during the civil war, the nazis, the communists and so on and so forth.

All these people lost and because they're losers, their perspective on the world is wrong.

Does it serve anyone to know this? No. Well then...

So what're you truely taught in school, CC?

You're taught to strengthen your morals. You're taught that your way of looking at things is and has always been superior to other perspective. You're taught that somehow we're morally better than anyone in history.

"Bad events" out of our own history are only written down as bad to re-affirm the fact that we're better now.

 

[Murdoch]

Knowing the losers perspective is just as important as knowing the winners perspective, IMO. If you understand how the loser thinks, you can compare/contrast it to the winners viewpoint. Then you can draw conclusions as to why the winner won. Only then can you truly understand the winners perspective, or the losers for that matter.

Problem is that the winners perspective for winning may not coincide with morality. If you conclude that, for instance, the US won the pacific war because it interned all Japanese-Americans, it would provide justification to continue such reprehensible actions in the future; if it worked before, you should continue it, right? But this would make prejudice and bigotry acceptable social practices if the winners are indeed right.

Many 'winners' have won for less than standup reasons. I think that this is a main impetus for revisionist history. Whether revising history to eliminate some of the darker aspects of the winning strategy is justified is a very complex issue by itself. It revolves on whether you can trust your people to see through the facts and understand their motivations in the context of history. A nation like North Korea cannot afford to give its people a choice, but a well educated, progressive nation can. But whether a nation like this exists today is debatable

 

[Sander]

Well... I'm not sure that the countries in close proximity to "the East" view them as totally alien. At least the countries around the baltic sea have a pretty good and neighbourly relationship.

There is only Germany seperating us from Poland, and I have yet to encounter the first Dutch who sees Poland as not alien.

Sander, I don't think I would call it "Americanized History". It's not like America is the only factor for hiding some of History's aspects. Every country has things it wants to hide, or at least to make less obvious.

Take the Algerian war, in which France tried to repress the Algerians from emancipating. Little is told in school manuals about the atrocities commited there, as well as the "details" of the Indochina war.

Take the assassination of Gen. Sobieski, who died in an "airplane accident", because he'd oppose the Yalta border re-definition.

I'm calling it Americanized history because I was talking about the attitude towards (ex)communist countries, and those attitudes are the responsiblity of the USA.

Total bullshit. Prejudice in history did not start with America..just read some Anna Comnena.
And, unlike you French and Belgian buddies, we teach about all the horrible things America did. As a matter of fact, I hated gradeschool primarily because I always fealt like the enemy every Febuary.

I never said it started with the USA. I merely said that the USA perpetuated it, and started it in some cases.
And we're taught about all the horrible things countries did. We are NOT taught about the GOOD things other countries did. We are, in fact, not taught at all about the Eastern European countries.

And I'm quite sure I learned quite a bit of the history of Lithuania, Latvia and Poland aswell as pre Soviet Russia when I went to school. Lots more than I learned of the history of countries like Spain, Italy or The Netherlands for that matter. But that's pretty natural, seeing as the history of Sweden has been intertwined with the histories of the baltic countries for centuries.

Sweden's a special case because Sweden has remained neutral throughout WW2. Hence, it wasn't as affected by the USA as other countries.

Note that I'm not saying taht the USA is somehow bad. I'm merely saying that even in this day and age the concept of "the victor writes history" prevails. There is no such thing as objective history.