US History and actual History.
- Thread starter Korten12
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I didn't say all, of course some are going to celebrate that, just like they celebrate a lot of things they shouldn't.Capitano Segnaposto said:
And, to be honest, I think that was a terrible, dirty victory and shouldn't be celebrated in any way. remembered, yes but celebrated? No.
For the bomb aspect, I'm not sure if that's a US history thing or not. Canadian here, and we were taught the same thing in high school, that is that Japan would've been unwilling to surrender and that the bombing was done as a means to prevent having to perform anymore costly efforts that could have led to more deaths (again, so we were told) The only issue came down to whether the Nagasaki bombing was done because the Japanese wouldn't surrender or because they were still unsure as to what had actually happened. It's possible that the story may be just an "Allies Version", but it's definitely not just a "US History" thing.
As for other possible examples? Speaking of being from Canada, I remember hearing talks that the war of 1812 was considered on being edited in textbooks (if it hadn't already though, reports seem to be varied) to make it seem like the US had the war in the bag (that is, rather than it being that the US declared war and were unable to actual gain territory or change boundaries, that the US had a more righteous reason or result or something like that, again, it seems to vary to what extent) Although again, to what extent this is true doesn't seem to be consistent, and I'm not entirely sure if this is an active undertaking to alter history or if it's just the perception taken from conversations/over-hearing from select Americans.
As for other possible examples? Speaking of being from Canada, I remember hearing talks that the war of 1812 was considered on being edited in textbooks (if it hadn't already though, reports seem to be varied) to make it seem like the US had the war in the bag (that is, rather than it being that the US declared war and were unable to actual gain territory or change boundaries, that the US had a more righteous reason or result or something like that, again, it seems to vary to what extent) Although again, to what extent this is true doesn't seem to be consistent, and I'm not entirely sure if this is an active undertaking to alter history or if it's just the perception taken from conversations/over-hearing from select Americans.
I was only giving my opinion on the matter, I'm not trying to argue anything. I felt the same way when Saddam and Bin Laden were killed; that it's a good thing but not something that should be celebrated. I see how taking lives is necessary at times but I don't see the need to celebrate. I see that the death of thousands of people, and the suffering of hundred more after the bombs were dropped could have been necessary but again, I don't see why it was celebrated.Capitano Segnaposto said:
And it IS still celebrated. Not in the jumping for joy, drink champagne way but in the "that'll teach those Japs not to cross us" way.
I've been quite satisfied with university-level US history, or at least what is available in the university I attend. It is quite a sobering contrast to the garbage that is taught in high school (which is not only biased, but incomplete in many ways).
BUT...
High school US history is not inaccurate in the way many of you posters believe it is (though it is understandable you might make those assumptions based on what you know about US culture, and our WW2/Cold War triumphalism). High school history is awful, but in different ways. In high school...
World War 2 is barely mentioned. It gets about 5 pages in textbooks, and wars in general don't get much attention. World War 1 gets about the same attention. The US' "we saved the world twice in two world wars" attitude comes more from movies and games.
History apparently ends around the Vietnam War. Maybe it's because the AP exams don't have post-Vietnam questions, so teachers feel they can just skip everything after. The Vietnam War itself has almost nothing taught about it, though my textbook amusingly blamed the South Vietnamese for losing the war.
Almost nothing is taught about the Cold War. It's not a bias here; there's as little about the "good" things (reconstruction of Germany/Japan, Marshall Plan, etc) as there is about the "bad" things (Vietnam, Guatemala, Iran, Cuba, Congo, Chile, etc etc). They just don't teach shit about it.
So, US history is criminally incomplete when taught in high school. Where I feel the BIAS comes in is the turn-of-the-century history (19th -> 20th), where high school teachers happily neglect to teach anything about the Philippines or Cuba occupations (you think water-boarding prisoners is bad? Check out the water torture US marines used on Filipino POWs), or our hand in the Panamanian Revolution. The rush into China and Open Door is also neglected, as are Woodrow Wilson's punitive invasions of Mexico. And of course American Revolution history is pretty biased, but I guess one can expect that because it's our founding story or w/e. They do, however, teach about how we wiped out the native Americans and how that wasn't very nice.
Also, my teacher hilariously tried to defend the Monroe Doctrine as protecting our neighbors from European meddling, but I don't think that's a general trend among US history teachers here.
So yes, US history is biased in high school. But no, not in the way you might assume it would be. Also, university level history in the US does fill in the gaps and clear the biases.
BUT...
High school US history is not inaccurate in the way many of you posters believe it is (though it is understandable you might make those assumptions based on what you know about US culture, and our WW2/Cold War triumphalism). High school history is awful, but in different ways. In high school...
World War 2 is barely mentioned. It gets about 5 pages in textbooks, and wars in general don't get much attention. World War 1 gets about the same attention. The US' "we saved the world twice in two world wars" attitude comes more from movies and games.
History apparently ends around the Vietnam War. Maybe it's because the AP exams don't have post-Vietnam questions, so teachers feel they can just skip everything after. The Vietnam War itself has almost nothing taught about it, though my textbook amusingly blamed the South Vietnamese for losing the war.
Almost nothing is taught about the Cold War. It's not a bias here; there's as little about the "good" things (reconstruction of Germany/Japan, Marshall Plan, etc) as there is about the "bad" things (Vietnam, Guatemala, Iran, Cuba, Congo, Chile, etc etc). They just don't teach shit about it.
So, US history is criminally incomplete when taught in high school. Where I feel the BIAS comes in is the turn-of-the-century history (19th -> 20th), where high school teachers happily neglect to teach anything about the Philippines or Cuba occupations (you think water-boarding prisoners is bad? Check out the water torture US marines used on Filipino POWs), or our hand in the Panamanian Revolution. The rush into China and Open Door is also neglected, as are Woodrow Wilson's punitive invasions of Mexico. And of course American Revolution history is pretty biased, but I guess one can expect that because it's our founding story or w/e. They do, however, teach about how we wiped out the native Americans and how that wasn't very nice.
Also, my teacher hilariously tried to defend the Monroe Doctrine as protecting our neighbors from European meddling, but I don't think that's a general trend among US history teachers here.
So yes, US history is biased in high school. But no, not in the way you might assume it would be. Also, university level history in the US does fill in the gaps and clear the biases.
I dunno, do they teach you guys about Japanese American Internment?
Not like we're clean of blood either, Canada did the same thing.
Not like we're clean of blood either, Canada did the same thing.
hmm, American here and I never got that impression from WW2 at least. When I was taught history, Britian was glorified for basically holding the line against seemingly impossible odds, without which the US would probably not have gotten a foothold in Europe. Russia was credited for providing one of the major turning points of the war. In fact, US involvement was pretty much downplayed in the European theater other than our generals. Pacific theater is another story.
Truth be told though, what you learn in history in the US during 1-12 is criminally incomplete. They give you the footnotes of the footnotes of history.
Truth be told though, what you learn in history in the US during 1-12 is criminally incomplete. They give you the footnotes of the footnotes of history.
Alright for the Hiroshima/Nagasaki thing.Korten12 said:
Yes, Japan was prepared and had already tried to surrender, but because the surrender was conditional (The emperor would get to stay on the throne) it was refused by the US. The land invasion would have cost more Japanese lives I am almost certain, since even though most of the population would not have taken up arms, the American troops proved that they saw nothing wrong with gunning down unarmed civilians and children throughout most of their wars. Hell the rape and murder figures for Japan during the American occupation are still downright staggering. Now as for the idea that it would have cost hundreds of thousands of American soldiers their lives to take Japan, those numbers are largely inflated so that Americans don't feel as guilty about dropping the bombs in the first place imo. The original estimates for the cost of land based invasion was between 30,000 and 500,000, though the later figure was based of the death tolls at Okinawa and Peliliu, which would have been very different battlefields compared to attacking the main islands.
As for the reason for the second bomb, well Japans infrastructure was demolished by firebombing for months leading up to Hiroshima, so it took a while for the news to get out. Even then, most of the military communiques were talking about the Soviet invasion of Manchuria that had just steamrolled all Japans troops in the area and was moving towards the coast with over a million troops.
The nuclear bombs were not necessary to defeat Japan, what they did do however is provide a nice example of why nuclear warfare is insane. Without the example of Japan the cold war may well have become hot, especially seeing as Japan would be in largely the same situation as Korea, split between a Soviet controlled north and an American held south.
There are so many what if scenarios around those bombs,
One thing I find fascinating is the American Revolution is not really taught in Britain. One of my British friends can lecture me extensively on the lineage of the royal families of Europe, but he cant recall ever learning about the revolution other than it being a thing that happened.
Actually I'm teaching the history of Canada in high school right now. While the curriculum tries to gloss over any of the horrific shit we used to do I always make sure to put it front and center and tell my students about it. A lot of them don't care but some of them pick up on the fact that maybe we aren't as nice a country as we pretend to be.Colour-Scientist said:
That's pretty much what I was taught in school, but you can't forget about Japanese internment during WW2, and the fact that we had a huge civil war over black slavery. Hell, a common phrase here is "the south will rise again". Plus I'm not real sure I agree with how we tried to dictate who could become a communist nation. We certainly threw our weight in every time another country tried to adopt an ideology that didn't match ours. Don't blame countries for accusing us of policing the globe.erttheking said: