Is it time to reexamine the way we teach and view history?

[FrodoSkywalker007]

As with my other posts, this is an area that has been dominated by the left for decades. The main sources for our understanding of historical events have often given an anti western spin on things. We see this with education, and also media.

Let me give some examples.

The Crusades are often seen as an unprovoked conflict where barbaric Christians attacked Muslims. It ignores the first crusade, which was launched in response to Turkish attacks on Christians. It also ignores 400 years of Islamic conquests that by that point conquered half of Christian territory. Let's be honest, if the roles were reversed, we'd be claiming the opposite.

We can look at interpretations of the Vietnam war. The claim of the US being militarily routed (if you studied the war, you'd know it's the opposite), or massive war crimes (ignoring the communists). The outcome and future understanding was largely controlled by the cultural movements of the day.

Slavery, where it's almost taboo to accept it was an universal practice, and that for much of the Atlantic slave trade, there were far more groups involved than just Europeans. Just look at the Woman King movie, that rewrites the story of actual slavers.

Or even WW2, where we (rightfully) emphasize the holocaust, yet seem to ignore Japanese practices, which were just as horrendous.

Colonialism? As if white people were the only ones to practice it. Ironically, many Africans speak about how it was better under European rule, due to massive corruption and incompetence in current governments.

We have people on this website spreading the wonders of the Ottomans, ignoring they conquered much of Europe. Turks can show supremacy?

Point is, our understanding for generations has been very anti western, anti white, and arguably anti historical.

This is due to the domination of cultural movements in our education and media, and it's changed how we see ourselves. It's changed how we see history.

Is it time to change that?

[exitseven]

yes, get the teachers union out of education and stop the propaganda.

[exitseven]

Thanks for the MHO

[Cidknee]

Nice piece! I wonder what the Turks thought of Drakula.

[Chazmatazz269]

History is written by the victors.
Here are some things for you to consider. Christians have NEVER done horrible things in the name of ensuring their god is dominant? Every time you tell that lie about the Crusades, which lasted the better part of a century, spanned multiple continents and included hundreds of offensives against peoples who had absolutely NOTHING to do with any attacks on the church, then you are suggesting that Christians have NEVER done anything wrong, ever? Does that make sense to you? The ONLY questionable behavior in the entire history of the church is ultimately justifiable. THAT is YOUR revised version of history.
Has the US NEVER done anything wrong? EVERY questionable move in US history is ultimately justifiable? Does that make sense to you?
You are actively participating in the worst kind of tribalism. When YOU align with a person or group, then you refuse to admit that they are capable of wrongdoing and when you don’t align with them, then everything they do is pure evil and they must be eradicated from the planet at all costs.
Yes, we absolutely need to review and teach history differently. We are actually on the opposite end of the pendulum swing from where we started. If you look hard enough, you can still find history books that declare that native American “indians” are savages who HAD to be decimated in order to make the land suitable for “civilized” people. There are still millions of US citizens who believe that the US massacring hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians was an appropriate response to the Japanese killing a few thousand mostly military personnel at Pearl Harbor. The same people are very in favor of Israel wiping out an entire people because of an unprovoked attack on their holy day. Men, women, children, all must die because only that is an appropriate response.
If you’re a warmonger, just admit it. Stop making excuses for history’s most horrific atrocities and pretending that the teams you like have never done horrible things. Just admit that you are in favor of innocent people being slaughtered, as long as you don’t consider them YOUR people.

[FrodoSkywalker007]

You seem to be the problem
Where do I claim in this question the US or Christians never did wrong?
I'm correctly explaining the misunderstanding of conflicts, which you are clearly illustrated.
For example, how is the Crusades an attack on people that were never aggressors? Care to explain?
What current text books in any level of education claim natives were people worthy of extermination?
How do we justify the killing of Japanese civilians? (I assume Nagasaki and Hiroshima?)
Was it not a declared war? Was Operation Downfall preferable on your eyes?
Should the US had not responded to attacks?

It's funny how you call me a warmonger but you completely ignore the other side.
The Islamic conquests that conquered half of Christian territory. Spain itself, took 8 centuries to liberate. The Crusades, a 2 century period, is your only response? You realize those territories were Christian just centuries before.
You show your bias.
If Christians launched an conquest of the Muslim world, and erased half of its territory, and enforced its will. You'd have a problem. I know this because you have an issuen with the Crusades. Yet, you ignore Muslims, who conquered the middle east (mostly christian), north Africa (mostly Christians), and swaths of Europe (mostly Christian)
You openly attack the US for responses against Japan, and ignore the Japanese agency? It wasn't just Pearl Harbor, and it wasn't just Americans.

Study history. This is pitiful.
You are proving my point.

[Anonymous]

When history is taught at school there is a political agenda behind it. Thats why for 5 years we were taught about the Holocaust and barely anything else. You think in English schools they would dare teach about the crusades and the events that led up to them.

How about the Cuban missile crisis. We were taught that JFK stared down the Soviets and emerged on top. Thats not what happened, it was JFK who backed down. But this globalist pro NATO pro US propaganda has been taught since the 60s.

[FrodoSkywalker007]

Quite the opposite actually.
Most Western education has an extremely critical view of western history
Take you JFK example. You claim he "backed down" yet it was the Soviets who were bringing missiles to Cuba. Instead, both sides agreed came to an agreement.
The Crusades are certainly highlighted, but I remember nothing about Islamic conquests.
Nice try.

[Opinion Owner]

Kruschev instigated the Cuban missile crisis to get the JFK to remove first strike missiles from Turkey. When it was over Kruschev got what he wanted.

The crusades are basically not taught because they were justified.

[FrodoSkywalker007]

Not entirely accurate. He sought to balance things out, but also sought to support the Castro regime.

[Opinion Owner]

No. The Russians felt that Americans had a first strike advantage over them and they wouldn't be able to respond in time. Kruschev got what he wanted. One of the few major strategic Soviet victories in the cold war.

[FrodoSkywalker007]

I'd suggest you to reread what I said. 🤦‍♂️

[Opinion Owner]

Reread what I said. Krushev intiated the Cuban missile crisis to get the US to remove missiles from turkey. When it was over the missiles were gone. No matter how you look at it, that is victory.

[FrodoSkywalker007]

I never denied that 🤦‍♂️
I stated both sides achieved what they wanted

[Opinion Owner]

Yes JFK stopped soviet missiles in cuba but had to give up us missiles in turkey and give krushev what he wanted.

[FrodoSkywalker007]

Once again you are attempting to argue something I'm not arguing. Look at the beginning of the conversation.

[Opinion Owner]

That defeat probably didn't go down well for JFK with the industrial military complex along with not supporting the bay of pigs invasion and reluctance to get more involved in Vietnam

[FrodoSkywalker007]

Once again, they came to an agreement which was a victory for both sides.
The US removed missiles from Turkey.
The Soviets were unable to put missiles in Cuba.
Both nations were able to lessen tensions that could have led to a war.

[Opinion Owner]

The soviets didn't want to put missiles in Cuba.
They wanted the US to remove missiles from turkey. The US refused and the Soviets threatened missiles and military bases in cuba and the US agreed to Soviet demands to remove missiles in turkey.
Thats a Soviet victory.

[FrodoSkywalker007]

revista.drclas.harvard.edu/.../

Kruschev wanted not only nuclear parity, but to support the Cubans, and US removal from West Berlin.

[Opinion Owner]

Yes and he supported the cubans so America would never invade them and secured a communist regime in the Americas while getting rid of American missiles in turkey.
In the end the US walked away with 2 major loses and the soviets gained more than they had. The US put a propoganda spin on it and declared victory

[FrodoSkywalker007]

He failed to remove US influence in West Berlin, and failed to arm Cuba.
Both nations gained and lost, and prevented a nuclear war

[Opinion Owner]

Nikita Khrushchev did not want to push America completely out of Berlin during the Cuban Missile Crisis, though he did use the threat of a crisis over Berlin as strategic leverage to force Western concessions.

The Cubans were armed.
The soviets lost nothing. And gained what they wanted.

[FrodoSkywalker007]

I'll call it a draw.
Clearly we are at an impasse.
Oh well 🤷‍♂️

[Opinion Owner]

Its not a draw if you force the other to give you exactly what you want.

[FrodoSkywalker007]

And yet the Soviets handed the US what it wanted.
Which was a withdrawal of Soviet forces and missiles

[Opinion Owner]

They were only there to force the us to withdraw its missiles in the first place and cuba has remained communist to this day

[FrodoSkywalker007]

As I said.
We are at an impasse.

[Opinion Owner]

Perhaps like JFK you should back down.

[FrodoSkywalker007]

You are more than welcome to view it as a "defeat"
I appreciate you saying in your mind it's one of the few strategic victories for the USSR.
However, considering both sides sacrificed what they wanted and achieved their goals.
I view it as a draw that prevented nuclear war

[Opinion Owner]

The US sacrificed, the soviets sacrificed nothing. The achieved their objectives

[FrodoSkywalker007]

They sacrifice demands for US removal from Berlin, and Cuba having missile sites

[Opinion Owner]

They were serious about it. They used Berlin like Cuba to get what they wanted.

[FrodoSkywalker007]

As I said impasse. 🤷‍♂️
Continue repeating circles, you will be removed.
I've been very generous so far

[Opinion Owner]

Pity JFK didn't have those stones. But I will leave it.

[FrodoSkywalker007]

Lol okay

[Anonymous]

Here are my hot takes on history

There was no evidence or any reason why Christopher Columbus went on a genocidal rampage.

Hitler was not a white supremacist. He was a German supremacist and was a massive fan of Islam and how they run societies, despite not being Muslim. He was also a socialist who believed in price and rent controls.

[purplepoppy]

But history doesn't ignore any of that. It's written down in history books for anyone to read.

[FrodoSkywalker007]

It's more about what is driven by the popular narrative.
If you have most Universities dominated by the left (that stats on that will surprise you), then most students will come away with a certain understanding.

Sure, you can research yourself, or attend one of the Universities that isn't as partisan (as I have), but still it's often ignored, or drowned out by the far more dominate side. Add in politics and culture wars, and it becomes quite difficult to get honest answers. 🤷‍♂️

[Paige2006]

Maybe