By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Question to non-Americans

 

My Countries Education System Teaches our history accurately.

Strongly Agree 16 21.62%
 
Somewhat Agree 29 39.19%
 
Neutral 7 9.46%
 
Somewhat Disagree 14 18.92%
 
Strongly Disagree 8 10.81%
 
Total:74
Eagle367 said:
Ka-pi96 said:

Well most of the people in the Americas are of European origin, the vast majority if you consider partial European ancestry too.

I don't think a lot of the things you mentioned should be in history class full stop. Indian numerals, algebra etc. should be in maths class. Poetry & writers in literature class (which should also be cancelled completely because literature is boring and teaching kids poetry should be considered child abuse!).

I would like a lot of the other history, I know of Mansa Musa for example and he (and the Mali empire) certainly seem like they'd be interesting), but I also think it should be in optional/additional classes. The focus during regular education should absolutely be national history. In most cases there isn't even enough time to cover national history in the amount of school history classes you do, so if you can't even do all of your own history then history from other places should definitely be extra later on, rather than further limiting the amount of national history that's taught. So on that basis I'd agree that countries such as yours should have minimal, if any, European history, but it should still be important for European countries, or former European colonies.

Edit: Oh and Shakespeare was in English literature class, rather than history class. Hence why I think other writers should be in literature class too. But it was the worst class ever so I'd rather it just get abolished completely!

I wasn't strictly talking about history class. I was talking about the entire structure of classes that involve history in any way e.g literature, politics, world history, maths, etc. Also those people didn't know how to stay in their own region so most of the world has been a colony at some point

DonFerrari said:

Again, most of the history outside of eurocentric and the topics covered for the non-eurocentric is what survived and had most impact in the world. There isn't much on the history of let's say congo or nepal that would really be relevant to anyone that isn't from there.

Sorry but I disagree completely. Many of the Europeans we study learned from people all over the world. All of it survived and ad influence in the modern world. It didn't just disappear. It's what you choose to learn. And the most impact thing is a bit ludicrous. It would seem that way if you only learn the eurocentric view which is a result of your education I guess. But the more history you learn, the more you realise there are a lot of holes in the eurocentric view and the more you realize how wrong your statement is.

Sure small pieces of knowledge here and there where picked in several places outside of europe (and the more relevant are taught) still the culture and history of those places weren't picked and actually there is no point in doing it outside of the local history for those places. We know you want to talk about the greatness of Islam but sorry to burst your bubble most people don't care and wouldn't have time to be included in their classes without taking other important subject from it.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
Majora said:
Eagle367 said:

What do you mean? Europeans didn't originate in Persia/India and even if they did, it wasn't their land. Europeans didn't discover the new world, it was there for a long while with people already there and hell it's said that Africans had reached it way before Columbus. Or was this some sort of joke I didn't understand? Either way, Europeans didn't know when to stop. From China to India to Australia to Indonesia to Malaysia to Afghanistan to most of the middle east and Africa, etc they tried to take control of it all. Today's Europeans are pretty chill but those people back then make me angry just thinking about them.

Why do you get angry about what people did “back then”? Utterly pointless, unhelpful and nonsensical. I’m afraid getting angry about anything in history will do nothing to change it, so you’d be better off simply learning what is good to do and not so good to do and moving forward. Origins of science and maths and literature and art etc etc are all fascinating yet if you’re learning the core subject (maths for example) it’s utterly irrelevant who, what and where “discovered” the equations etc - it matters only that those who are learning it understand it now, in the present, to be able to do something useful with the knowledge. It’s good to keep the knowledge alive of who, what and where, for historical and cultural purposes, but pressing home the ethnicity or culture of the time of the supposed discoverers of anything is unhelpful and time consuming. Furthermore, being through the education system in the UK, I was never taught about the wonderful, magical European discoverers of everything under the sun; I was simply taught the core subject. I really don’t know where people get this idea that Europeans dance about the place thinking they’re the greatest species of anything ever in the whole universe, but it’s not the reality at all and most people are just trying to live their lives the best they can today. 

Don Ferrari disagrees hahaha. But to be serious, you clearly haven't taken university classes of maths and physics and other sciences. They mention a lot of people who discovered things. Also, the ancestors of those Europeans aka Americans now still mess with most of the world. Not most Americans, but the government. They can't keep to themselves and do shitty things like invading nations, dropping drone strikes on weddings, supporting terrorists , etc. 

But the reason I got angry was because someone said that the former colonies of Europe should have eurocentric studies. I don't have a problem with most Europeans today but history and how it's taught matters a lot. The way history has been taught for a while makes it seem like Africans were doing nothing before the European invasion which makes people in many regions have the misconception that Africans are lesser than somehow. Sorry but knowing history and how it's taught is very important.



Just a guy who doesn't want to be bored. Also

Eagle367 said:
Majora said:

Why do you get angry about what people did “back then”? Utterly pointless, unhelpful and nonsensical. I’m afraid getting angry about anything in history will do nothing to change it, so you’d be better off simply learning what is good to do and not so good to do and moving forward. Origins of science and maths and literature and art etc etc are all fascinating yet if you’re learning the core subject (maths for example) it’s utterly irrelevant who, what and where “discovered” the equations etc - it matters only that those who are learning it understand it now, in the present, to be able to do something useful with the knowledge. It’s good to keep the knowledge alive of who, what and where, for historical and cultural purposes, but pressing home the ethnicity or culture of the time of the supposed discoverers of anything is unhelpful and time consuming. Furthermore, being through the education system in the UK, I was never taught about the wonderful, magical European discoverers of everything under the sun; I was simply taught the core subject. I really don’t know where people get this idea that Europeans dance about the place thinking they’re the greatest species of anything ever in the whole universe, but it’s not the reality at all and most people are just trying to live their lives the best they can today. 

Don Ferrari disagrees hahaha. But to be serious, you clearly haven't taken university classes of maths and physics and other sciences. They mention a lot of people who discovered things. Also, the ancestors of those Europeans aka Americans now still mess with most of the world. Not most Americans, but the government. They can't keep to themselves and do shitty things like invading nations, dropping drone strikes on weddings, supporting terrorists , etc. 

But the reason I got angry was because someone said that the former colonies of Europe should have eurocentric studies. I don't have a problem with most Europeans today but history and how it's taught matters a lot. The way history has been taught for a while makes it seem like Africans were doing nothing before the European invasion which makes people in many regions have the misconception that Africans are lesser than somehow. Sorry but knowing history and how it's taught is very important.

Whether you like the fact or not, history has been full of the colonised and the coloniser. That is just fact. We will probably never know the very first person to ever discover anything, the best we can go with is the first person who’s work was preserved. We usually credit most of the initial scientific and mathematical discoveries and breakthroughs to the civilisations in the Middle East, not Europeans. We also credit the invention of written language to the civilisations of the Middle East (of course here I’m using modern language to describe a region). 

You don’t need to say sorry regarding the importance of  history because I’d wager that as an historian I understand and appreciate the importance of history as well as if not better than most. I’d also like to point out that when you’re arguing about these things, you yourself will also go looking for history that fits your agenda - confirmation bias. Unfortunately, the world isn’t so black and white, and rarely will you get the closest we can to “truth” taking this approach. You’re correct that I haven’t studied maths or science at uni, but if you did and your most pressing concern is worrying about the acknowledgement of Africa, then I’m afraid I feel it’s been a waste of time. An education in science should be based on the important and fundamental discoveries of that science and the teaching of its principles; if you’re taught in those classes about the exact precise moment in history person x, y or z discovered this or that and focus on their race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, birthplace or gender, frankly you are wasting time. That belongs in history classes. We have a finite amount of time on this planet and we cannot use that time to focus on every (or I should say, popular) grievances of every person since the dawn of time. If we do, we will go backwards and frankly it feels as though we are these days as identity politics has decreed itself the only worthwhile discussion topic on the planet. 

Edit - I’d also like to point the Chinese have one of if not the longest civilisations on the planet, and were fundamental in the discovery and invention of many, many things we all take for granted today. I never hear the praise for them or their impact on the world, yet nobody seems to worry about teaching about the many and impactful contributions the Chinese gave to the world; why is that? Well, I know why, but that’s not a discussion I’d have on this site. 

Last edited by Majora - on 22 January 2021

Eagle367 said:

Don Ferrari disagrees hahaha. But to be serious, you clearly haven't taken university classes of maths and physics and other sciences. They mention a lot of people who discovered things. Also, the ancestors of those Europeans aka Americans now still mess with most of the world. Not most Americans, but the government. They can't keep to themselves and do shitty things like invading nations, dropping drone strikes on weddings, supporting terrorists , etc. 

But the reason I got angry was because someone said that the former colonies of Europe should have eurocentric studies. I don't have a problem with most Europeans today but history and how it's taught matters a lot. The way history has been taught for a while makes it seem like Africans were doing nothing before the European invasion which makes people in many regions have the misconception that Africans are lesser than somehow. Sorry but knowing history and how it's taught is very important.

Why would that make you angry?

To me it seems common sense that people in Australia etc. should learn about where they came from and why they ended up in Australia. Why on earth would learning about Africa be more important than learning about their own origins?



Majora said:
Eagle367 said:

Don Ferrari disagrees hahaha. But to be serious, you clearly haven't taken university classes of maths and physics and other sciences. They mention a lot of people who discovered things. Also, the ancestors of those Europeans aka Americans now still mess with most of the world. Not most Americans, but the government. They can't keep to themselves and do shitty things like invading nations, dropping drone strikes on weddings, supporting terrorists , etc. 

But the reason I got angry was because someone said that the former colonies of Europe should have eurocentric studies. I don't have a problem with most Europeans today but history and how it's taught matters a lot. The way history has been taught for a while makes it seem like Africans were doing nothing before the European invasion which makes people in many regions have the misconception that Africans are lesser than somehow. Sorry but knowing history and how it's taught is very important.

Whether you like the fact or not, history has been full of the colonised and the coloniser. That is just fact. We will probably never know the very first person to ever discover anything, the best we can go with is the first person who’s work was preserved. We usually credit most of the initial scientific and mathematical discoveries and breakthroughs to the civilisations in the Middle East, not Europeans. We also credit the invention of written language to the civilisations of the Middle East (of course here I’m using modern language to describe a region). 

You don’t need to say sorry regarding the importance of  history because I’d wager that as an historian I understand and appreciate the importance of history as well as if not better than most. I’d also like to point out that when you’re arguing about these things, you yourself will also go looking for history that fits your agenda - confirmation bias. Unfortunately, the world isn’t so black and white, and rarely will you get the closest we can to “truth” taking this approach. You’re correct that I haven’t studied maths or science at uni, but if you did and your most pressing concern is worrying about the acknowledgement of Africa, then I’m afraid I feel it’s been a waste of time. An education in science should be based on the important and fundamental discoveries of that science and the teaching of its principles; if you’re taught in those classes about the exact precise moment in history person x, y or z discovered this or that and focus on their race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, birthplace or gender, frankly you are wasting time. That belongs in history classes. We have a finite amount of time on this planet and we cannot use that time to focus on every (or I should say, popular) grievances of every person since the dawn of time. If we do, we will go backwards and frankly it feels as though we are these days as identity politics has decreed itself the only worthwhile discussion topic on the planet. 

Edit - I’d also like to point the Chinese have one of if not the longest civilisations on the planet, and were fundamental in the discovery and invention of many, many things we all take for granted today. I never hear the praise for them or their impact on the world, yet nobody seems to worry about teaching about the many and impactful contributions the Chinese gave to the world; why is that? Well, I know why, but that’s not a discussion I’d have on this site. 

Actually I am talking about acknowledging every region for their contributions including China, wchi you seem to agree with me on that. I also want the acknowledgement of Japan or Russia or it's rich literary history and of course going into specifics is near impossible but the world being globally connected isn't a modern phenomenon and my basic point is the acknowledgement that different regions contributed to humanity in different ways and how history and development is connected. They don't go into specifics but they do mention the names, timelines and contributions of the scientists as an intro to the theories named for the scientists that worked on them in science classes. 

My basic gripe is that the history presented in our time has falsely given huge importance to one region only while ignoring the rest of the world. Europe has contributed a lot for the development of mankind but Europe isn't the only one that did. Children need to be taught perspective and a history as close to reality as possible without important omissions. Otherwise we end up with adults who think too highly of their own lands accomplishments and we suffer real world consequences for that because these same adults than justify what might be unjustifiable by disregarding the humanity of everyone else. The stupid IQ debate being linked to races is one example that comes to mind. Another is calling other people barbaric, cave dwellers, etc to justify invading them. 

It also creates bonds of humanity to learn that the development of humanity was a collaborative effort of all humanity instead of one region just doing all the heavy lifting. Hell even in one region, one specific timeframe being the be all and end all for that region is troublesome. Like the weird perception people have about the dark ages. While true that many atrocities occured in Europe during that time, that's not quite the whole story. Not for Europe and certainly not for the world at large. 

My point is we can do a better job at teaching a more balanced viewpoint of history instead of one serving an agenda, though I do agree you can never get rid of bias altogether, nor should you completely do that I think.  

Ka-pi96 said:
Eagle367 said:

Don Ferrari disagrees hahaha. But to be serious, you clearly haven't taken university classes of maths and physics and other sciences. They mention a lot of people who discovered things. Also, the ancestors of those Europeans aka Americans now still mess with most of the world. Not most Americans, but the government. They can't keep to themselves and do shitty things like invading nations, dropping drone strikes on weddings, supporting terrorists , etc. 

But the reason I got angry was because someone said that the former colonies of Europe should have eurocentric studies. I don't have a problem with most Europeans today but history and how it's taught matters a lot. The way history has been taught for a while makes it seem like Africans were doing nothing before the European invasion which makes people in many regions have the misconception that Africans are lesser than somehow. Sorry but knowing history and how it's taught is very important.

Why would that make you angry?

To me it seems common sense that people in Australia etc. should learn about where they came from and why they ended up in Australia. Why on earth would learning about Africa be more important than learning about their own origins?

Because former colonies are more than Australia, US and Canada. As I said, most of the world is a former European colony. And the Europeans of those times did some pretty effed up things like the British in India used to hang Hindus wrapped in cow skins and Muslims wrapped in pig skins for defying their rule as an example. It wasn't all bad but if you know about Islam and Hinduism, that's some messed up shit. So I hope that tells you why it would make me angry.



Just a guy who doesn't want to be bored. Also

Around the Network
Eagle367 said:
Ka-pi96 said:

Why would that make you angry?

To me it seems common sense that people in Australia etc. should learn about where they came from and why they ended up in Australia. Why on earth would learning about Africa be more important than learning about their own origins?

Because former colonies are more than Australia, US and Canada. As I said, most of the world is a former European colony. And the Europeans of those times did some pretty effed up things like the British in India used to hang Hindus wrapped in cow skins and Muslims wrapped in pig skins for defying their rule as an example. It wasn't all bad but if you know about Islam and Hinduism, that's some messed up shit. So I hope that tells you why it would make me angry.

eh, not really to me. When I think of the former colonies I think solely of the countries where the majority of people are of European origin. The others are people that existed before and still exist now. They may have been conquered by colonial empires, but they were never really colonised, they remained their own people and they still are their own people.

So the only countries that I would call former colonies are those that literally wouldn't exist if they hadn't been colonies such as the US, Mexico, Brazil, Australia etc.

Like Ghana for example, it was a British colony, but I wouldn't think of it as a colonial country. It's its own country, the people were already there and are largely the same as they were before, it's completely different to the above mentioned countries.



Ka-pi96 said:

eh, not really to me. When I think of the former colonies I think solely of the countries where the majority of people are of European origin. The others are people that existed before and still exist now. They may have been conquered by colonial empires, but they were never really colonised, they remained their own people and they still are their own people.

So the only countries that I would call former colonies are those that literally wouldn't exist if they hadn't been colonies such as the US, Mexico, Brazil, Australia etc.

Like Ghana for example, it was a British colony, but I wouldn't think of it as a colonial country. It's its own country, the people were already there and are largely the same as they were before, it's completely different to the above mentioned countries.

So only the places where the indigenous people were near completely removed and replaced by Europeans are considered colonized by your definition. I guess it's a good thing you weren't running the empire back then or there would be a lot fewer people on earth right now.

To be clear I don't actually disagree with your larger argument that makes sense for countries that were created by those of European descent to learn about European history.  It is useful in understanding the creation of the United States Government.

I just have a problem with your definition of colonized. "they remained their own people and they still are their own people." These weren't just places that were allowed to live as they had previously, they were forced to adopt new customs, laws, borders, etc. In many places, there were multiple distinct groups of people but to Europeans, they were all the same and forced together. Whether they like it or not (and I am guessing not) European culture was forced upon them and is now part of their history. It feels offensive to say they weren't really colonized. 



 

My Real Redneck friends


Ka-pi96 said:
Eagle367 said:

Because former colonies are more than Australia, US and Canada. As I said, most of the world is a former European colony. And the Europeans of those times did some pretty effed up things like the British in India used to hang Hindus wrapped in cow skins and Muslims wrapped in pig skins for defying their rule as an example. It wasn't all bad but if you know about Islam and Hinduism, that's some messed up shit. So I hope that tells you why it would make me angry.

eh, not really to me. When I think of the former colonies I think solely of the countries where the majority of people are of European origin. The others are people that existed before and still exist now. They may have been conquered by colonial empires, but they were never really colonised, they remained their own people and they still are their own people.

So the only countries that I would call former colonies are those that literally wouldn't exist if they hadn't been colonies such as the US, Mexico, Brazil, Australia etc.

Like Ghana for example, it was a British colony, but I wouldn't think of it as a colonial country. It's its own country, the people were already there and are largely the same as they were before, it's completely different to the above mentioned countries.

You just contradicted yourself mate. Ghana was a former colony. So was Palestine and Syria and Pakistan. The British and French basically made the modern middle Eastern map because most of the places there were colonies and they drew squiggly lines how they saw fit. That's how the  mess of the modern middle east was made. Hong Kong was a British colony and that's why one country two systems exist(ed). Pakistan and Bangladesh probably wouldn't exist if India wasn't a British colony. Mass genocide and population replacement aren't qualifiers for a place to be a colony.



Just a guy who doesn't want to be bored. Also

PDF said:
Ka-pi96 said:

eh, not really to me. When I think of the former colonies I think solely of the countries where the majority of people are of European origin. The others are people that existed before and still exist now. They may have been conquered by colonial empires, but they were never really colonised, they remained their own people and they still are their own people.

So the only countries that I would call former colonies are those that literally wouldn't exist if they hadn't been colonies such as the US, Mexico, Brazil, Australia etc.

Like Ghana for example, it was a British colony, but I wouldn't think of it as a colonial country. It's its own country, the people were already there and are largely the same as they were before, it's completely different to the above mentioned countries.

So only the places where the indigenous people were near completely removed and replaced by Europeans are considered colonized by your definition. I guess it's a good thing you weren't running the empire back then or there would be a lot fewer people on earth right now.

To be clear I don't actually disagree with your larger argument that makes sense for countries that were created by those of European descent to learn about European history.  It is useful in understanding the creation of the United States Government.

I just have a problem with your definition of colonized. "they remained their own people and they still are their own people." These weren't just places that were allowed to live as they had previously, they were forced to adopt new customs, laws, borders, etc. In many places, there were multiple distinct groups of people but to Europeans, they were all the same and forced together. Whether they like it or not (and I am guessing not) European culture was forced upon them and is now part of their history. It feels offensive to say they weren't really colonized. 

Eagle367 said:
Ka-pi96 said:

eh, not really to me. When I think of the former colonies I think solely of the countries where the majority of people are of European origin. The others are people that existed before and still exist now. They may have been conquered by colonial empires, but they were never really colonised, they remained their own people and they still are their own people.

So the only countries that I would call former colonies are those that literally wouldn't exist if they hadn't been colonies such as the US, Mexico, Brazil, Australia etc.

Like Ghana for example, it was a British colony, but I wouldn't think of it as a colonial country. It's its own country, the people were already there and are largely the same as they were before, it's completely different to the above mentioned countries.

You just contradicted yourself mate. Ghana was a former colony. So was Palestine and Syria and Pakistan. The British and French basically made the modern middle Eastern map because most of the places there were colonies and they drew squiggly lines how they saw fit. That's how the  mess of the modern middle east was made. Hong Kong was a British colony and that's why one country two systems exist(ed). Pakistan and Bangladesh probably wouldn't exist if India wasn't a British colony. Mass genocide and population replacement aren't qualifiers for a place to be a colony.

The dictionary definition of "colonise" is to settle your own people somewhere, so yeah I don't consider a lot of countries former colonies since the "colonists" aren't there any more and weren't ever there in any great numbers in the first place

They were no more colonies than all of the places that the Mongols conquered. Unless you want to start talking about the Mongolian "colonial" empire too? Or how about the Greeks? Would you call Ptolemaic Egypt a Greek colony just because it was ruled by Greek people, despite the Egyptians still being the majority of the population? I wouldn't. I would call Syracuse a Greek colony though, since it was set up by the Greeks and was basically 100% Greek.

Last edited by Ka-pi96 - on 23 January 2021

Ka-pi96 said:
PDF said:

So only the places where the indigenous people were near completely removed and replaced by Europeans are considered colonized by your definition. I guess it's a good thing you weren't running the empire back then or there would be a lot fewer people on earth right now.

To be clear I don't actually disagree with your larger argument that makes sense for countries that were created by those of European descent to learn about European history.  It is useful in understanding the creation of the United States Government.

I just have a problem with your definition of colonized. "they remained their own people and they still are their own people." These weren't just places that were allowed to live as they had previously, they were forced to adopt new customs, laws, borders, etc. In many places, there were multiple distinct groups of people but to Europeans, they were all the same and forced together. Whether they like it or not (and I am guessing not) European culture was forced upon them and is now part of their history. It feels offensive to say they weren't really colonized. 

Eagle367 said:

You just contradicted yourself mate. Ghana was a former colony. So was Palestine and Syria and Pakistan. The British and French basically made the modern middle Eastern map because most of the places there were colonies and they drew squiggly lines how they saw fit. That's how the  mess of the modern middle east was made. Hong Kong was a British colony and that's why one country two systems exist(ed). Pakistan and Bangladesh probably wouldn't exist if India wasn't a British colony. Mass genocide and population replacement aren't qualifiers for a place to be a colony.

The dictionary definition of "colonise" is to settle your own people somewhere, so yeah I don't consider a lot of countries former colonies since the "colonists" aren't there any more and weren't ever there in any great numbers in the first place

They were no more colonies than all of the places that the Mongols conquered. Unless you want to start talking about the Mongolian "colonial" empire too? Or how about the Greeks? Would you call Ptolemaic Egypt a Greek colony just because it was ruled by Greek people, despite the Egyptians still being the majority of the population? I wouldn't. I would call Syracuse a Greek colony though, since it was set up by the Greeks and was basically 100% Greek.

But you just called Ghana a colony and I find my description more consistent



Just a guy who doesn't want to be bored. Also