I want to know what other countries write about themselves and America. What they teach in schools and what debates they have about historical events. Initial google searches just gives best sellers written by westerners or for a western audience.
History texts in other countries
- Thread starter HighStickHarry
- Start date
If you search on the /r/askreddit subreddit, these questions come up all the time. Yesterday they had one about how the Japanese teach the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
Here are two classics of historiography that address the question, both very well written and readily available:
Silencing the Past by Michel-Rolph Truillot, about the ways the Haitian Revolution has been remembered in Haiti and elsewhere
Imagined Communities by Benedict Anderson, mostly about the ways that modern Europeans constructed national identities---through the press and cultural memory, for example.
Both these books do an outstanding job framing what you asked about.
I understand there is a lot of great work about how the Indian sub-continent 'views itself,' but I haven't read it.
The literature on "festivalization" is a good way to view the uses of culture (especially history and heritage) as a way to construct national identity. I like this edited volume, which is global in context.
I'm not familiar with stuff about the ways non-Americans have viewed America, but I'm sure I'll remember some book or some scholar I heard was working on it.
Silencing the Past by Michel-Rolph Truillot, about the ways the Haitian Revolution has been remembered in Haiti and elsewhere
Imagined Communities by Benedict Anderson, mostly about the ways that modern Europeans constructed national identities---through the press and cultural memory, for example.
Both these books do an outstanding job framing what you asked about.
I understand there is a lot of great work about how the Indian sub-continent 'views itself,' but I haven't read it.
The literature on "festivalization" is a good way to view the uses of culture (especially history and heritage) as a way to construct national identity. I like this edited volume, which is global in context.
I'm not familiar with stuff about the ways non-Americans have viewed America, but I'm sure I'll remember some book or some scholar I heard was working on it.
I'm not sure Japanese children are taught anything about their forefathers role in starting WWII including the sanctioned murder and rape of millions. Zero accountability, although I'm sure they go heavy on a-bomb victim spin.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Maybe in this thread we could also examine how our schools white wash our own history. I don't think there is much off limits at the collegiate level, but hearken back to your high school texts.
Dovetails nicely into the fact that our own state legislature is trying to ban AP history classes because they teach at more of a college level (less whitewashing).
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
My daughter is doing a foreign exchange year in France next year as a junior. I'm interested in this perspective as well when she comes back.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
I have a very good friend who I worked with at the US Trademark Office who did a semester abroad at University of Bologna in Italy during his college years.
He and I had fairly similar political outlooks, but he said that the disinformation about American History that he encountered while there made him look like a John Bircher in comparison. He said a lot of the Italian and other foreign students he met were completely convinced that the US Govt was still gunning down American Indians on sight at least up until WWII - hiring "cowboys" who they paid a "bounty" (like the wolf eradication program the US Govt used to run in the western states.)
That was just one example, and he could recite another dozen that were as equally preposterous, but which the other students were equally convinced were just as true.
There's a pretty decent movie by Whit Stillman called Barcelona, which brought the topic up. In the film, one of the character's cousin, who was a US Naval Officer, comes to visit him in Spain and a lot of the guys friends and acquaintances start badgering the Navy guy about US politics, including a bunch of really off the wall stuff. My buddy started laughing and couldn't stop and then later told me that it was a near verbatim account of what he encountered in Italy. Of course, he said that in he had encountered many American's held views and ideas about Italy that were nearly as off the wall as the Italians did about Americans.
He and I had fairly similar political outlooks, but he said that the disinformation about American History that he encountered while there made him look like a John Bircher in comparison. He said a lot of the Italian and other foreign students he met were completely convinced that the US Govt was still gunning down American Indians on sight at least up until WWII - hiring "cowboys" who they paid a "bounty" (like the wolf eradication program the US Govt used to run in the western states.)
That was just one example, and he could recite another dozen that were as equally preposterous, but which the other students were equally convinced were just as true.
There's a pretty decent movie by Whit Stillman called Barcelona, which brought the topic up. In the film, one of the character's cousin, who was a US Naval Officer, comes to visit him in Spain and a lot of the guys friends and acquaintances start badgering the Navy guy about US politics, including a bunch of really off the wall stuff. My buddy started laughing and couldn't stop and then later told me that it was a near verbatim account of what he encountered in Italy. Of course, he said that in he had encountered many American's held views and ideas about Italy that were nearly as off the wall as the Italians did about Americans.
My history teacher in high school (Jr year) told me that if I could find a dozen mistakes or "challenges" (where I disputed the conclusion the authors made or their presentation of facts) that I would not have to take a single quiz that semester and would get an A. I found about 30 in the first 5 chapters alone.
Try - "Lies my teacher's told me" for a look at what simple, elementary things that most school history books get completely wrong.
Try - "Lies my teacher's told me" for a look at what simple, elementary things that most school history books get completely wrong.
A
anon_ph7vrsh7abnty
Guest
I was lucky enough to have as my high school history teacher a true skeptic, someone who was not afraid to highlight injustice and oppression (and perseverance and triumph, which are both defined by injustice and oppression). He had photos of Holocaust survivors on the wall of the classroom, and we went in depth about the Tulsa Race Riot (this in the early-90s, when it was much less known than today). We learned how to identify biases and subjectivity in newspaper articles and first-hand accounts. He was no 'Muric-hatin' libtard, either. In fact he was a GOP state representative. He served on the commission to investigate the Tulsa Riot.
My other teachers, in junior high or in world history...different story.
My other teachers, in junior high or in world history...different story.
Anodyne,
I would love to see the results (for those same questions) for Japanese/Chinese and Japanese/Korean.
That whole "Rape of Nanking" thing and the kidnapping of tens of thousands of Korean women to be exported to the Japanese military's "Comfort Houses" left a far more indelible memory on the Chinese and Koreans than likely bombing Pearl Harbor did for Americans and we know how outraged the American public was about Pearl Harbor. I can only imagine the level of outrage for the peoples in the region who actually were under the control of the Japanese.
I would love to see the results (for those same questions) for Japanese/Chinese and Japanese/Korean.
That whole "Rape of Nanking" thing and the kidnapping of tens of thousands of Korean women to be exported to the Japanese military's "Comfort Houses" left a far more indelible memory on the Chinese and Koreans than likely bombing Pearl Harbor did for Americans and we know how outraged the American public was about Pearl Harbor. I can only imagine the level of outrage for the peoples in the region who actually were under the control of the Japanese.
I had a professor that would probably be labeled an anti Semite for telling us the timeline and breakdown of the Zionist movement that created modern Israel. Even college educated people who just took their standard history survey classes have no idea how all that took place. Also the carving up of the Ottoman Empire, western exploitation of natural resources and creating their own propped up puppet governments in the Middle East. I'm no Muslim sympathizer but both sides need to be a part of any "world history."
Decent thread. I've always been interested in this topic....and comparing textbooks from various schools abroad.
When I was teaching in Vietnam, I thought it was interesting how they stressed the 'liberation of Cambodia from the Khmer Rouge' and how they saved millions of lives and Khmer culture. I don't remember any class in high school or college that looked upon that in quite the same way. LOL. It's all about perspective.
And while it's safe to say the history textbooks in Saigon were the most 'anti-American' of any textbook in Asia, the South Vietnamese mostly saw right through it and were the most favorable of Americans than any other Asian country. Always thought that was interesting.
This post was edited on 4/7 7:51 PM by NipponPoke
When I was teaching in Vietnam, I thought it was interesting how they stressed the 'liberation of Cambodia from the Khmer Rouge' and how they saved millions of lives and Khmer culture. I don't remember any class in high school or college that looked upon that in quite the same way. LOL. It's all about perspective.
And while it's safe to say the history textbooks in Saigon were the most 'anti-American' of any textbook in Asia, the South Vietnamese mostly saw right through it and were the most favorable of Americans than any other Asian country. Always thought that was interesting.
This post was edited on 4/7 7:51 PM by NipponPoke
A few years ago on a business trip I ran into a couple of Russian nationals and somehow we got to talking about WWII.
they were totally convinced that Russia won it more or less all by themselves. The thought that the US got into the war just before it was over e.g pearl harbor was in like Dec 44.
I pointed out that PH was in 41 and we were supplying both England and Russia with weapons throughout the war.
Also brought up the fact that the war was also about the japonese and Italy as well and the Russians did not really fight them
Finally had to get on the internet and show then some facts on the above. They were totally shocked and said they would go do their own research....
Posted from Rivals Mobile
they were totally convinced that Russia won it more or less all by themselves. The thought that the US got into the war just before it was over e.g pearl harbor was in like Dec 44.
I pointed out that PH was in 41 and we were supplying both England and Russia with weapons throughout the war.
Also brought up the fact that the war was also about the japonese and Italy as well and the Russians did not really fight them
Finally had to get on the internet and show then some facts on the above. They were totally shocked and said they would go do their own research....
Posted from Rivals Mobile
A few years ago on a business trip I ran into a couple of Russian nationals and somehow we got to talking about WWII.
they were totally convinced that Russia won it more or less all by themselves. The thought that the US got into the war just before it was over e.g pearl harbor was in like Dec 44.
I pointed out that PH was in 41 and we were supplying both England and Russia with weapons throughout the war.
Also brought up the fact that the war was also about the japonese and Italy as well and the Russians did not really fight them
Finally had to get on the internet and show then some facts on the above. They were totally shocked and said they would go do their own research....
Posted from Rivals Mobile
they were totally convinced that Russia won it more or less all by themselves. The thought that the US got into the war just before it was over e.g pearl harbor was in like Dec 44.
I pointed out that PH was in 41 and we were supplying both England and Russia with weapons throughout the war.
Also brought up the fact that the war was also about the japonese and Italy as well and the Russians did not really fight them
Finally had to get on the internet and show then some facts on the above. They were totally shocked and said they would go do their own research....
Posted from Rivals Mobile
The Brits will tell you they won WWII. Won the first Gulf War, too. Ask 'em, don't take my word for it.
xplor58,
My wife is a huge WWII history buff. But she was educated in the Russian dominant Mongolian school system (the Russian's basically ran Mongolia as a satellite nation from the 30's until they were kicked out in 1990, with their own hand-picked govt in place.)
Likewise, her textbooks focused on the role the Soviet's played in defeating the Nazis, with the US, Brits, etc. playing a much diminished role. In fairness to the Russians however, given the shear number of people they put in uniform and the number of casualties they took, I can't really fault them for thinking they did the heavy lifting to some degree. (Also, the war having taken place on much of Russia's own soil, I'm certain influenced their thinking compared to the way they think about the British, US and other allies roles, considering how few civilian casualties we took.)
The thing for which the Russian's credit the Mongolian soldiers? Their importance of the Mongolian cavalry (using Mongolian horses) in moving artillery in near impossible conditions during the Battle of Stalingrad. Their textbooks concede that without the Mongolian horses, their artillery would have been grounded like the German's was and that the battle would likely have been lost. 20 below Zero to Mongolians is a "mild winter" and their horses had no problem with it, while the German and Russian horses died off and their mechanized units were not functioning at those temps.
Civilian and Military casualties (dead) WWII
Russia - 15 Million to 25 Million (difficult to assess as Germans destroyed so many records and the Commies wanted to keep their public believing that the casualty figures were low so as not to make them look incompetent in their prosecution of the war and to hide their killing of their own civilians.)
USA - less than 500,000 for both the European and Pacific campaigns.
My wife is a huge WWII history buff. But she was educated in the Russian dominant Mongolian school system (the Russian's basically ran Mongolia as a satellite nation from the 30's until they were kicked out in 1990, with their own hand-picked govt in place.)
Likewise, her textbooks focused on the role the Soviet's played in defeating the Nazis, with the US, Brits, etc. playing a much diminished role. In fairness to the Russians however, given the shear number of people they put in uniform and the number of casualties they took, I can't really fault them for thinking they did the heavy lifting to some degree. (Also, the war having taken place on much of Russia's own soil, I'm certain influenced their thinking compared to the way they think about the British, US and other allies roles, considering how few civilian casualties we took.)
The thing for which the Russian's credit the Mongolian soldiers? Their importance of the Mongolian cavalry (using Mongolian horses) in moving artillery in near impossible conditions during the Battle of Stalingrad. Their textbooks concede that without the Mongolian horses, their artillery would have been grounded like the German's was and that the battle would likely have been lost. 20 below Zero to Mongolians is a "mild winter" and their horses had no problem with it, while the German and Russian horses died off and their mechanized units were not functioning at those temps.
Civilian and Military casualties (dead) WWII
Russia - 15 Million to 25 Million (difficult to assess as Germans destroyed so many records and the Commies wanted to keep their public believing that the casualty figures were low so as not to make them look incompetent in their prosecution of the war and to hide their killing of their own civilians.)
USA - less than 500,000 for both the European and Pacific campaigns.
