(history) patriotism vs the truth

[sherper]

I currently live in Australia,and have just finished it's 2 year manditory Australian and Aborigonal history course. For those of you who don't know much about Australia, we are a young nation barely 200 years in the forming. Our world contribution is to say limited at best. WWI we sent troops to turkey, and got our arse hamded to us, leading to the complete and total failure of that campaign; but that doesn't matter, gallipoli was where the anzac legend was born! Commence 20 weeks of lessons on national patriotism.

That was just one of the dozen topics in our 2 year history course. I know a nation has to try to install some patriotism into it's citizens, but Australia is bending, twisting and force feeding its history to the point of insulting my intellegence! I read other sources apart from your's you know. They even managed to link capitalism with democracy, and communism with authoritarian, like who wouldn't feel the anger?!

Whats it like in your country? Do they force you through your countrie's history as well? Do they bend the truth like they do here? Do they try and install patriotism? If so, how much do they try?

[Marxaveli]

It is really bad here in the US. We are probably the most anti-communist nation on the planet. But most of the propaganda bullshit is taught in primary and secondary education. When you go to college, the best advice to give to someone is to forget everything you learned previously, because most institutions of higher education are much more left leaning. I suspect this is why grade school-high school is compulsory (where they indoctrinate you with anti-communist and pro-nationalist rhetoric), and college education is so expensive, because they know once you get to a university you will actually learn the truth about things. An educated populace is a dangerous populace, because they are more free thinking and not easily controlled, so higher education is made very expensive for everyone but the ruling class. Of course, this isn't to say all people with a degree are free thinkers and radical revolutionaries. But there is certainly a very strong co-relation between anti-intellectualism, patriotism, and the far right. And there is certainly a reason they want it as difficult as possible for the poor and working class to obtain the necessary social and culture capital to get ahead. It isn't rocket science, really...heh.

[Rooster]

Scottish history is actually completely ignored here.

On the other hand, on the west coast you do get a kind of stupid nationalist stuff where you get one set of football supporters pretending to be Irish and then you have another acting like they're British (who march around sometimes to make fun of the other ones). This is also based on religion somehow, but basically none of the people in either group go to church.

[blackandyellow]

History classes in the UK seem to focus completly on Nazi Germany and the Civil Rights movement in America for some reason.

[Rooster]

History classes in the UK seem to focus completly on Nazi Germany and the Civil Rights movement in America for some reason.

The Russian revolution was actually on the curriculum up north if you can believe that.

[socialistjustin]

It's so bad here that a guy wrote a book called Lies My Teacher Told Me. Luckily most of my history teachers were pretty left leaning. One guy voted for Nader even.

[kashkin]

In my experience, the Aboriginal part of the course wasn't very patriotic. The Gallipoli had shades, but Christ, the part on WW2 was as if Reagan had written a history of the Cold War.

Also, very little mention of Australian colonies, just that the PM was a brave man who stood up to British stuffiness. Also, that Australia blocked Japan's Racial Equality proposal at the Paris Peace Accords is not mentioned at all.

[thefinalmarch]

the part on WW2 was as if Reagan had written a history of the Cold War.
My history textbook focused on the fascists' rise to power (mainly focusing on Kristallnacht, the Night of the Long Knives etc.) and then it literally ignored all references to actual combat in WW2. It moved on immediately afterwards to the Cold War and focused nearly entirely on Australia's minor role in Viet Nam, in which the book tried to justify conscription by saying "only" a few hundred Australians died, and tried to portray the Viet Cong as barbaric and uncivilised savages or something.

Also, according to my history textbook, the Bolsheviks' effective total control over the bourgeois state and their enactment of the NEP was not a necessary consequence of the material conditions in Russia at the time, but that Lenin was just a naturally evil guy who wanted nothing more than to oppress and enslave the working class. Then again this is pretty much the bog standard bullshit which literally everyone on the planet spits out.

[Os Cangaceiros]

It is really bad here in the US. We are probably the most anti-communist nation on the planet. But most of the propaganda bullshit is taught in primary and secondary education. When you go to college, the best advice to give to someone is to forget everything you learned previously, because most institutions of higher education are much more left leaning. I suspect this is why grade school-high school is compulsory (where they indoctrinate you with anti-communist and pro-nationalist rhetoric), and college education is so expensive, because they know once you get to a university you will actually learn the truth about things. An educated populace is a dangerous populace, because they are more free thinking and not easily controlled, so higher education is made very expensive for everyone but the ruling class. Of course, this isn't to say all people with a degree are free thinkers and radical revolutionaries. But there is certainly a very strong co-relation between anti-intellectualism, patriotism, and the far right. And there is certainly a reason they want it as difficult as possible for the poor and working class to obtain the necessary social and culture capital to get ahead. It isn't rocket science, really...heh.

hurm? This doesn't make any sense. If the upper classes benefit from the university system, and indeed integrate themselves into the system through faculty and the student body, wouldn't you expect the university system to teach curriculum that more or less fell along agreeable political and economic lines?

The university system is attended by a lot more kids than just future potential candidates for the ruling class. A lot of kids there "graduate" from local community colleges to larger state schools. The vast majority graduate with no less interest in keeping the present economic system intact. That's because universities DO teach political and economic themes along lines that are generally "mainstream"...you'll find very few economists who'll agree that Marxism is a great thing. Go to Columbia business school, or Harvard, or anywhere else and see what they say about your economic thoughts. The university system maybe is slightly, SLIGHTLY more sympathetic to real revolutionary thought than public schools, but not by much.

[Tablo]

hurm? This doesn't make any sense. If the upper classes benefit from the university system, and indeed integrate themselves into the system through faculty and the student body, wouldn't you expect the university system to teach curriculum that more or less fell along agreeable political and economic lines?

The university system is attended by a lot more kids than just future potential candidates for the ruling class. A lot of kids there "graduate" from local community colleges to larger state schools. The vast majority graduate with no less interest in keeping the present economic system intact. That's because universities DO teach political and economic themes along lines that are generally "mainstream"...you'll find very few economists who'll agree that Marxism is a great thing. Go to Columbia business school, or Harvard, or anywhere else and see what they say about your economic thoughts. The university system maybe is slightly, SLIGHTLY more sympathetic to real revolutionary thought than public schools, but not by much.
I think that public education is so right-wing that the already right-leaning universities can't help but appear left-leaning in comparison.

I will say that in my experience it seems my classes are very left leaning in comparison to my high school education. Might be because I'm in Alabama. In my Alabama History class we were required to read a book talking about slavery in the state and spent most of our time talking about the average lives of slaves and poor whites. I think most history professors are already left leaning to begin with though. I've heard the political science and economics professors are awful.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I think that the universities are "left-wing" if you were to refer to a political spectrum running from "free market capitalism" on the right, to "social democracy" on the left. And certainly in history classes you learn that the USA has fucked up (many times!)

But you get a taste of that in public school, too, and p. much every liberal believes it as well. There's nothing inherently left-wing about the fact that America has fucked up/continues to fuck up. That's just a fact, lol

Classes dealing with the state of the present day (such as Poli Sci or Econ) are overwhelmingly supportive of the status quo.

[Marxaveli]

hurm? This doesn't make any sense. If the upper classes benefit from the university system, and indeed integrate themselves into the system through faculty and the student body, wouldn't you expect the university system to teach curriculum that more or less fell along agreeable political and economic lines?

The university system is attended by a lot more kids than just future potential candidates for the ruling class. A lot of kids there "graduate" from local community colleges to larger state schools. The vast majority graduate with no less interest in keeping the present economic system intact. That's because universities DO teach political and economic themes along lines that are generally "mainstream"...you'll find very few economists who'll agree that Marxism is a great thing. Go to Columbia business school, or Harvard, or anywhere else and see what they say about your economic thoughts. The university system maybe is slightly, SLIGHTLY more sympathetic to real revolutionary thought than public schools, but not by much.

Well I do have to admit, it has been many years since I was in high school, well over a decade in fact. What are they teaching in Political Science and government classes these days in high school? They didn't teach Marx when I went, and any mention of communist thought, on the rare occasions it was discussed, was always in a negative connotation. But Marx is taught in most political science classes in most colleges or universities, and many of the professors at least respect, if not embrace, his work.

And of course economists dont like Marxist thought. Economists just want to keep us broke :laugh: Most political science and history professors lean very left (from my experience), while economists and business professors generally lean right/libertarian. And sociology instructors are ALWAYS leftists, many are radicalized. I guess it really depends on your major.

[sherper]

Is it different what they teach you for every state in the US? Cause i think most of our school material are the same. Still crap in my opinion :bored:. My hand is still sore from writting and sucking up to capitalist ideology in my school certificate history exam, for 2 and a half hours; don't blame me, You see the marks when i do stick to my ideology. High school history teachers here do not like us leftists :(.

[Red Commissar]

I'm not sure about the rest of the country but the education in Texas tends to go along these lines. That being said it was not patriotic and self-serving for some. This ended up causing a showdown in the board over middle school textbooks and their content. All in the framework of 'reclaiming' the classroom from liberals and of course American exceptionalism. It may be worth noting that the standards they were challenging were from the Bush years as Governor.

They wanted to instill patriotism and 'pride' in Texas students for America. They thought the big problem by the youth was their 'embarrassment' and self hating attitude towards their 'heritage'. Of course they blamed this on a concerted effort by 'liberals' to brainwash the youth (and what they're doing isn't just that?) if not the dreaded CULTURAL MARXISM that some even suggested.

Some really stupid things were suggested and unfortunately it was adopted. Note too that a lot of textbooks are catered to the TEA's standards because Texas is a large customer. This means other states will get this sugarcoated history (without the Texas history of course). Ultimately though it still comes down to the teachers and the districts. My district didn't really refer to the texts that much because they were a mess, and taught us the material in other ways.

What's stupid even more is it presents both Texas and American history in the framework of the 'civilizing' Anglo-Americans against Natives and Catholic Mexicans. I trust this will be incredibly awkward in school districts with many Latino students, if not a majority. In addition to the whitewashing of slavery and Jim Crow to African-American communities.

Here's a thread I started on that matter back then. It includes a summary on what they wanted to see from the new standards.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?t=129110

[Belleraphone]

My World History teacher was right-wing (economically, socially very liberal) but treated Marxism and other leftist ideologies fairly. One time we had a discussion about Arbenz's policies of seizing the banana republics and claiming them for his own, and one student said that Arbenz was out of line because that was private property, then the teacher went onto explain the horrible working conditions. I actually probably had a very fair world history textbook too. It straight out said that the USA supported right-wing death squads in central and Latin America, and when it talked about Castro it said that although he was authoritarian and was harmful to liberties, conditions of living went up and talked about how Cuba was at a disadvantage with the embargo that USA had set on them.

You don't need a left-leaning teachers or universities, you just need a classroom that promotes open and honest scholarship and analysis, in that environment Marxism will always win.

@Red Comissiar.
Yeah I remember those textbook changes a few years ago, what you need to do is take AP History if its provided at your school since they have a different curriculum. Remember, no Thomas Jefferson because of separation of church and state and there were indications that he hated certain capitalist institutions. We did not get to study any history in depth past Carter, we knew a little about Reagan's image and his general economic policy, but no specifics since the tests don't go into recent history that much. Most of USA's worst atrocities were committed under Reagan and his successors, so it's not as good as the world history course. Still, it talked a lot about the worker struggles and sympathized with Debs.

[Franz Fanonipants]

At the post-graduate level, basically, a lot of the "rah rah rah America!" business goes away pretty quickly. My own work is pretty critical of American continental expansion. A colleague of mine also looks at the negative impact of American imaginings of Indians on New Deal Indian art funding and creation.

We DO have some people who are a little more conservative and nationalistic in our department, but most academic history is pretty un-nationalistic.

[Nox]

In my history classes at college, we are doing:

AS: British Empire, Indian Nationalism

A2: Civil Rights, German History (from the begging of the German Empire)

I really can't wait until we do German History, there's a kid in my class who I strongly suspect is a White Nationalist or something similar - that should bring him out of his shell.

[kashkin]

My history textbook focused on the fascists' rise to power (mainly focusing on Kristallnacht, the Night of the Long Knives etc.) and then it literally ignored all references to actual combat in WW2. It moved on immediately afterwards to the Cold War and focused nearly entirely on Australia's minor role in Viet Nam, in which the book tried to justify conscription by saying "only" a few hundred Australians died, and tried to portray the Viet Cong as barbaric and uncivilised savages or something.

Also, according to my history textbook, the Bolsheviks' effective total control over the bourgeois state and their enactment of the NEP was not a necessary consequence of the material conditions in Russia at the time, but that Lenin was just a naturally evil guy who wanted nothing more than to oppress and enslave the working class. Then again this is pretty much the bog standard bullshit which literally everyone on the planet spits out.


This is basically what I experienced though we did focus a little on the Battle of Britain and the Pacific theatre. However my history teacher was quite a leftist (social democrat) so it wasn't as right wing as I expected. The justifications for Vietnam your book gives is quite similar to the justifications my book gave for Australia's involvement in South Africa and other imperialist struggles (there weren't many soldiers and that Australia was a lackey of the British Empire. True, but it doesn't justify it).

[Red Commissar]

@Red Comissiar.
Yeah I remember those textbook changes a few years ago, what you need to do is take AP History if its provided at your school since they have a different curriculum. Remember, no Thomas Jefferson because of separation of church and state and there were indications that he hated certain capitalist institutions. We did not get to study any history in depth past Carter, we knew a little about Reagan's image and his general economic policy, but no specifics since the tests don't go into recent history that much. Most of USA's worst atrocities were committed under Reagan and his successors, so it's not as good as the world history course. Still, it talked a lot about the worker struggles and sympathized with Debs.

Well, I'm actually in my last year of college now so it'd be a little too late to take an AP history course :laugh:

But I understand what you are saying. AP courses are generally going to invite a more thorough discussion of these topics, which is what I was pointing back to when I said that my classroom back when I was in high school didn't teach from the textbooks all that much (though they were made available to us) because the department felt they didn't do much good.

We won't be sure of what these new standards will do until they get adopted, but the regular textbooks themselves are already ideologically slanted, a feat considering how they were before.

[the last donut of the night]

lol "left-wing" in american schooling is costumed right doctrine in most other countries