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 14 24.56%
 
Somewhat Agree 18 31.58%
 
Neutral 7 12.28%
 
Somewhat Disagree 11 19.30%
 
Strongly Disagree 7 12.28%
 
Total:57
Ka-pi96 said:

English here. Let's see...

We learnt about the Roman Invasion and Boudica. Although I suppose we (the Anglo-Saxons) were still in Denmark/northern Germany at the time so it isn't even our history.
1066. Can't remember learning much if anything about the build up, but definitely learnt about William and the Harolds.
The crusades. Not a lot about the crusades though, mostly just Richard the Lionheart's participation in them.
The black death. Can't remember much about what we were taught, but it was taught.
The English Civil War. Made Ollie look like a good guy and I guess by being anti-monarchy he kind of was so that's not necessarily wrong. They did leave out the Irish genocide though so they did leave out some of the bad stuff there.
World War 2. This got a LOT of attention. Way too much IMO. To the point where WW2 will forever be boring to me now. I get that it was relatively recent and it was a huge war, but it was only 6 years long. Why should like 80% of our history education only cover a 6 year long period? Perhaps the worst part is that WW1 was completely ignored too. That was also pretty recent, and even one of the direct causes of WW2, but nope, let's just completely skip over that and forget it even happened. Didn't learn anything about WW1 until an optional College course about Germany history.

So yeah, I'd say our history education was accurate. It didn't really lie about things. Some things were missed out, but that was true of both good and bad things. It was mind of propagandafied though. Not so much in the sense of trying to make things appear better than they were, but more like it was designed by somebody with a massive boner for WW2 who wanted everybody else to share his fanatical obsession with it.

Didn't even learn about the Vikings invasion or that half of your country was once known as Danelaw.   That the normans who were pretty much Vikings invaded and conquered the Saxons.  



Around the Network
sethnintendo said:

Didn't even learn about the Vikings invasion or that half of your country was once known as Danelaw.   That the normans who were pretty much Vikings invaded and conquered the Saxons.  

We did get the Viking raids in the Netherlands. However, I think it was mostly a 'friendly' version of history that we got. For example with the Vikings, sure they raided (and pillaged, raped and killed) but the focus was on their great excursions and where they reached. Same with the Romans and everything else in old times, always focusing on the victors, even the crusades were a fun excursion... Except the Spanish inquisition, couldn't really spin a positive on that one. Kinda funny, crusades were good but then in the dark ages religion became the villain that never recovered. The Dutch colonies were all people fleeing from religious prosecution after all...



SvennoJ said:
sethnintendo said:

Didn't even learn about the Vikings invasion or that half of your country was once known as Danelaw.   That the normans who were pretty much Vikings invaded and conquered the Saxons.  

We did get the Viking raids in the Netherlands. However, I think it was mostly a 'friendly' version of history that we got. For example with the Vikings, sure they raided (and pillaged, raped and killed) but the focus was on their great excursions and where they reached. Same with the Romans and everything else in old times, always focusing on the victors, even the crusades were a fun excursion... Except the Spanish inquisition, couldn't really spin a positive on that one. Kinda funny, crusades were good but then in the dark ages religion became the villain that never recovered. The Dutch colonies were all people fleeing from religious prosecution after all...

I'm all for people believing in whatever they want to believe in.  However, I know there was good reason to punish certain beliefs.  Take for instance the Puritans.  They should have all been killed before allowing to escape to America.  We are still dealing with Puritan laws in USA called the blue laws.  Can't buy liquor in most states on Sunday except at a bar -contradictory.  Can't buy beer on Sunday till after 12pm because supposed to be in church.



My country, Switzerland, was the laughing 3rd in WWII, whole Europe was crashed but the Nazis and Jews had their money in our Swiss banks. Obviously, the Nazis couldn't attack the one country that stashed their money. Of course, the Swiss bank played their evil part in the aftermath and kept the money of the murdered Jews and didn't want to know anything of their surviving dependants who would have a rightful claim of the money. Of course, they wanted to keep it for themselves. In recent times, Switzerland payed hundreds of millions to the Jews as reparation.

Despite the evil part the Swiss banks and some other Swiss players played in WWII I think Switzerland, a tiny little country, did act correctly during WWII in order to not be completely destroyed by a gigantic and powerful Nazi regime. And anybody thinking otherwise, should go and *beep* themselves, or better, should be dropped out into the crossfire of a battlefield!



sethnintendo said:
Ka-pi96 said:

English here. Let's see...

We learnt about the Roman Invasion and Boudica. Although I suppose we (the Anglo-Saxons) were still in Denmark/northern Germany at the time so it isn't even our history.
1066. Can't remember learning much if anything about the build up, but definitely learnt about William and the Harolds.
The crusades. Not a lot about the crusades though, mostly just Richard the Lionheart's participation in them.
The black death. Can't remember much about what we were taught, but it was taught.
The English Civil War. Made Ollie look like a good guy and I guess by being anti-monarchy he kind of was so that's not necessarily wrong. They did leave out the Irish genocide though so they did leave out some of the bad stuff there.
World War 2. This got a LOT of attention. Way too much IMO. To the point where WW2 will forever be boring to me now. I get that it was relatively recent and it was a huge war, but it was only 6 years long. Why should like 80% of our history education only cover a 6 year long period? Perhaps the worst part is that WW1 was completely ignored too. That was also pretty recent, and even one of the direct causes of WW2, but nope, let's just completely skip over that and forget it even happened. Didn't learn anything about WW1 until an optional College course about Germany history.

So yeah, I'd say our history education was accurate. It didn't really lie about things. Some things were missed out, but that was true of both good and bad things. It was mind of propagandafied though. Not so much in the sense of trying to make things appear better than they were, but more like it was designed by somebody with a massive boner for WW2 who wanted everybody else to share his fanatical obsession with it.

Didn't even learn about the Vikings invasion or that half of your country was once known as Danelaw.   That the normans who were pretty much Vikings invaded and conquered the Saxons.  

No, we had the Normans. That was covered in 1066 with William the conqueror.

Although the Anglo-Saxons weren't far off being vikings (they were from Denmark, just a few centuries before the viking age started) and they also invaded and conquered the native (albeit Romanised) Britons (some of whom became Welsh and others fled to Brittany, now a part of France).

Besides, the Norman conquest wasn't really the same. The Anglo-Saxons completely replaced the Britons. The Normans were mostly just present within the aristocracy and ruling classes. They precipitated the transition from Anglo-Saxon to English and are the reason for most of the borrowed French words in the English language, but the Anglo-Saxons remained the majority.



Around the Network
SvennoJ said:
sethnintendo said:

Didn't even learn about the Vikings invasion or that half of your country was once known as Danelaw.   That the normans who were pretty much Vikings invaded and conquered the Saxons.  

We did get the Viking raids in the Netherlands. However, I think it was mostly a 'friendly' version of history that we got. For example with the Vikings, sure they raided (and pillaged, raped and killed) but the focus was on their great excursions and where they reached. Same with the Romans and everything else in old times, always focusing on the victors, even the crusades were a fun excursion... Except the Spanish inquisition, couldn't really spin a positive on that one. Kinda funny, crusades were good but then in the dark ages religion became the villain that never recovered. The Dutch colonies were all people fleeing from religious prosecution after all...

The crusades were towards the end of the dark ages though. The dark ages were the period from the fall of the western Roman Empire, up until the start of the renaissance.



SvennoJ said:
sethnintendo said:

Didn't even learn about the Vikings invasion or that half of your country was once known as Danelaw.   That the normans who were pretty much Vikings invaded and conquered the Saxons.  

We did get the Viking raids in the Netherlands. However, I think it was mostly a 'friendly' version of history that we got. For example with the Vikings, sure they raided (and pillaged, raped and killed) but the focus was on their great excursions and where they reached. Same with the Romans and everything else in old times, always focusing on the victors, even the crusades were a fun excursion... Except the Spanish inquisition, couldn't really spin a positive on that one. Kinda funny, crusades were good but then in the dark ages religion became the villain that never recovered. The Dutch colonies were all people fleeing from religious prosecution after all...

Well, there's often also a lot of truth to the 'friendly' version of history as well. The middle ages are often depicted as a violent and dark period, while the reality is a lot more nuanced. This is especially true for the Vikings, who are usually seen as some of the most violent and brutal people in history, while in reality they weren't really all that different from others and were actually mostly concerned with trade. It makes sense that schools would react to this by highlighting their more positive sides.

Btw, the term 'dark ages' is a (rather negative) synonym for the early middle ages, which are roughly the years 500-1000. The crusades only started a century after that.



Ka-pi96 said:
SvennoJ said:

We did get the Viking raids in the Netherlands. However, I think it was mostly a 'friendly' version of history that we got. For example with the Vikings, sure they raided (and pillaged, raped and killed) but the focus was on their great excursions and where they reached. Same with the Romans and everything else in old times, always focusing on the victors, even the crusades were a fun excursion... Except the Spanish inquisition, couldn't really spin a positive on that one. Kinda funny, crusades were good but then in the dark ages religion became the villain that never recovered. The Dutch colonies were all people fleeing from religious prosecution after all...

The crusades were towards the end of the dark ages though. The dark ages were the period from the fall of the western Roman Empire, up until the start of the renaissance.

Ah, I'm mistaken with the Roman invasion of Jerusalem, that was all told as part of the great expansion of Roman empire. You're right, the crusades are in the dark ages. I don't think we covered that, which might explain the crossed wires in my memory :/ The 11th century is all a bit hazy, rather a big gap from the 6th century to the Mongols arriving in the 13th century. It was simply the dark ages in between, nothing happened. (except the actual crusades lol, and well the viking raids)

Finding out things about the quality of your education is very interesting.



Canada here. Mostly talked about the comparatively peaceful interactions with Canada British compared to natives. But we still leaned about colonialism and reservations etc. Slavery of course discussed and causes of both world wars. Looking back it all seemed neutral, the texts didn’t shame either side, it just told the events as they happened. 

In regards to the US, it makes sense to paint a more positive picture of the past while acknowledging the negatives at the same time. The US became a global superpower and the road there should be acknowledged.



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

From Canada but I'll take a neutral stance on the matter since I do think most of the facts, events are dicussed broadly enough that we are knowleadgeable of them by the end of classes but if you don't go into the higher educational tier, you'll be mostly left out of actually understanding different concepts and how they relate/explain to past events and today eventful happenings.



Switch Friend Code : 3905-6122-2909