Things That Are Wrong With Common 'Knowledge'.

[Yootwopia]

Hokai, I'm basically in the process of doing an MA in German History, and certain things about 'classic' historiography (for example, Bryce, both in his 1864 and 1904 editions of his book on the HRE) and 'common knowledge' around certain topics are just counterfactual and grating - for one thing, the pretend destruction of the Holy Roman Empire after 1648, when actually it had territorial stability or expansions and a strengthened internal structure for pretty much the whole of the 18th century until Napoleon turns up, which, though causing rivalries between Austria and Prussia, is not the kind of Massive German Cataclysm Of Horror that is generally ascribed to what happened, see also the characterisation of the Thirty Years War as 'Protestants versus Catholics', which actually makes my face hurt with how wrong it is.

Obviously, the Early-Modern history of what can be anachronistically described as Germany is not the only area in which this occurs (for example, Historians That Are Wrong describe the British empire as at its height in the late 19th or very early 20th century, when until the 1930s, British influence over most of its domains could be charitably described as 'loose', and its greatest territorial extent was in the interwar period, but there we are), and I'd be intrigued to know about any similar oversights or questionable interpretations in anything you chaps and chapettes are studying, historical or otherwise.

[Serrland]

I'm afraid I'll stumble on a forfeit answer and the screen behind me will flash and Stephen Fry will read something off that little card and make fun of me with his eyes...

[Yootwopia]

Risk it for a biscuit.

[Serrland]

The abolition of plantation slavery (worldwide, not in America, which is an exception) as a result of modern philosophical and moral advancements (which is partially true) instead of as a result of the Industrial Revolution drastically changing the nature of labor.

[Yootwopia]

The abolition of plantation slavery (worldwide, not in America, which is an exception) as a result of modern philosophical and moral advancements (which is partially true) instead of as a result of the Industrial Revolution drastically changing the nature of labor.

I'm not sure how much of an American Sonderweg exists on that particular front, to be honest.

[Northwest Slobovia]

Welcome to the world of scholarly knowledge vs. "what everybody knows".

Offhand, I'd say there's tremendous confusion in both supposedly-educated and popular sources about anything to do with arms and armor before, say, 1800.

[Serrland]

The abolition of plantation slavery (worldwide, not in America, which is an exception) as a result of modern philosophical and moral advancements (which is partially true) instead of as a result of the Industrial Revolution drastically changing the nature of labor.

I'm not sure how much of an American Sonderweg exists on that particular front, to be honest.

Because it was abolished through force rather than being able to be offed because it was no longer necessary/relevant, as I see it.

[Conserative Morality]

Because it was abolished through force rather than being able to be offed because it was no longer necessary/relevant, as I see it.

North - Industrial, abolished slavery peacefully

South - Not Industrial, no real change in labor/social structure.

[Yootwopia]

I think the South's loss in that war was precisely because their patterns of labour and industry were outmoded, and the abolition by force of slavery was an acceleration of process that was started in the workshops of the Scottish Lowlands, but you might disagree with that over-broad interpretation I suppose.

[Serrland]

I think the South's loss in that war was precisely because their patterns of labour and industry were outmoded, and the abolition by force of slavery was an acceleration of process that was started in the workshops of the Scottish Lowlands, but you might disagree with that over-broad interpretation I suppose.

It was, but it wasn't organic, it was brought about through force of arms.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

As a student of Russian history, I can tell you there's quite a bit wrong with 'common knowledge'. Starting with the idea of 'General Winter' as a reasonable excuse for losing a campaign in Russia.

You also see some remarkable fudging in terms of British history when compared to the rest of the world (in English sources, anyway.) It's amazing how something like the 1805 attack on Copenhagen is either ignored or simply dismissed as 'necessary', or even somehow skewed as being the right thing to do.

tl;dr, half of our 'common knowledge' of history comes from 19th century propagandists. The sad thing is that nobody cares about this except (some) historians, and attempts to correct it are met with indifference on the part of most and hostility on the part of those dedicated to propagating the current model of history.

[Yootwopia]

I think the South's loss in that war was precisely because their patterns of labour and industry were outmoded, and the abolition by force of slavery was an acceleration of process that was started in the workshops of the Scottish Lowlands, but you might disagree with that over-broad interpretation I suppose.

It was, but it wasn't organic, it was brought about through force of arms.

The kinetic is the organic.

[Serrland]

It was, but it wasn't organic, it was brought about through force of arms.

The kinetic is the organic.

Yeah, you're right. Damn.

So that removes the exception for the US - the rest of my point stands.

[The Baristo Union]

Well let's see. American military performance during the Revolution AND the idea of the American Revolution as a lower-class movement. Oh but my favorite would be "The Dark Ages," the best common knowledge block in Western history. Because nothing important happened between Rome and the Renaissance right?

[Saint Jade IV]

tl;dr, half of our 'common knowledge' of history comes from 19th century propagandists. The sad thing is that nobody cares about this except (some) historians, and attempts to correct it are met with indifference on the part of most and hostility on the part of those dedicated to propagating the current model of history.

The sad part is that most uneducated, or undereducated people don't know or care how true this is.

History, as taught in our schools, is highly politicised propaganda, which attempts to skew students to a positive world view of the role of the nation in which the students are being educated.

However, its difficult to prevent it to be perfectly frank. It's also one of the most difficult subjects to keep teacher bias out of.

It's not until university that you start to get into a more nuanced, less heavily influenced view.

[Yootwopia]

Well let's see. American military performance during the Revolution AND the idea of the American Revolution as a lower-class movement. Oh but my favorite would be "The Dark Ages," the best common knowledge block in Western history. Because nothing important happened between Rome and the Renaissance right?

Aye that Petrach has a lot to answer for.

[Soheran]

People generally have a far harsher view of political parties and partisanship than they ought to. This can get them into trouble; for instance, a lot of people who split-ticket vote (and a lot of Americans do) vote in ways that can only be described as irrational.

Edit: Not even going to touch the misconceptions people have about ethics (and especially meta-ethics), because I wouldn't know where to begin.

[Conserative Morality]

The sad part is that most uneducated, or undereducated people don't know or care how true this is.

History, as taught in our schools, is highly politicised propaganda, which attempts to skew students to a positive world view of the role of the nation in which the students are being educated.

Is it? I must be going to the wrong schools, honestly.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

The sad part is that most uneducated, or undereducated people don't know or care how true this is.

History, as taught in our schools, is highly politicised propaganda, which attempts to skew students to a positive world view of the role of the nation in which the students are being educated.

Is it? I must be going to the wrong schools, honestly.

I do recall being taught that Washington was a brilliant general, and remember distinct gaps in the American Revolutionary War insofar as Franco-Spanish aid is concerned.

[The Shrailleeni Empire]

Is it? I must be going to the wrong schools, honestly.

I do recall being taught that Washington was a brilliant general, and remember distinct gaps in the American Revolutionary War insofar as Franco-Spanish aid is concerned.

This. What battle of New York? Louis the who?

[Conserative Morality]

I do recall being taught that Washington was a brilliant general, and remember distinct gaps in the American Revolutionary War insofar as Franco-Spanish aid is concerned.

Spanish aid was undertaught, but I was always taught that Washington was a great leader but a bad tactician (We went over some of his tactical mistakes in class). It was emphasized in class that we couldn't have won the war without the French.

[Barringtonia]

Hitler's other ball is not, in fact, in the Albert Hall.

[Saint Jade IV]

The sad part is that most uneducated, or undereducated people don't know or care how true this is.

History, as taught in our schools, is highly politicised propaganda, which attempts to skew students to a positive world view of the role of the nation in which the students are being educated.

Is it? I must be going to the wrong schools, honestly.

Perhaps not where you are, but in Australia it definitely is.

The so-called black armband approach to history is used as a rather derisive term to attempt to silence any inclusion of Indigenous history (such as Stolen Generation, Myall Creek Massacre, WIK, Tent Embassy etc), and any mention of the White Australia Policy.

I think it's also very easy for history teachers to justify leaving out controversial details about periods in history, simply because its too difficult to teach it all. I think this leads to information that may challenge traditional culturally accepted narratives of historical facts being ousted.

I don't doubt that this is occurring in other subjects as well, but feel that the cultural impacts overall are different. Though whether the same can be said for the formation of well-rounded individuals is another matter, of in my view, equal or greater import.

[Jagalonia]

Well let's see. American military performance during the Revolution AND the idea of the American Revolution as a lower-class movement. Oh but my favorite would be "The Dark Ages," the best common knowledge block in Western history. Because nothing important happened between Rome and the Renaissance right?

It was called the 'Dark Ages' because the rate of scientific advancement declined rapidly, IIRC....

[Conserative Morality]

Perhaps not where you are, but in Australia it definitely is.

The so-called black armband approach to history is used as a rather derisive term to attempt to silence any inclusion of Indigenous history (such as Stolen Generation, Myall Creek Massacre, WIK, Tent Embassy etc), and any mention of the White Australia Policy.

I think it's also very easy for history teachers to justify leaving out controversial details about periods in history, simply because its too difficult to teach it all. I think this leads to information that may challenge traditional culturally accepted narratives of historical facts being ousted.

I don't doubt that this is occurring in other subjects as well, but feel that the cultural impacts overall are different. Though whether the same can be said for the formation of well-rounded individuals is another matter, of in my view, equal or greater import.

You see, over here, at least where I'm at, there's a need to go over certain controversial sections of history (Such as the trail of tears) and addressing the problems that arose from it. In theory, at least. We do get *taught* these things, it just doesn't stick with most people. In practice it's all rote learning that most of the students memorize and then immediately forget. It's a shame as I always had such wonderful conversations with my teachers.