Ignoring Historical Truths and the Dangers Thereof

[Lancaster of Wessex]

This article piqued my interest, especially after the whole "the Rape of Nanking was a lie!" debacle courtesy another poster.

My fear is one of not only historical revisionism (specifically dangerous revisionism such as Holocaust denial, or as above, the denial of Japanese atrocities in Nanking), but of people in a position of authority denying the teaching of their nation's darker happenings.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8119320.stm:

But not all young Ukrainians have an exclusively negative view of their 20th-Century history.

In Kiev, there is a vast monument to the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany: a sprawling bronze relief of soldiers bearing guns and bayonets.

"We love our history," said Svitlana, a young schoolteacher from the southern city of Odessa, on an outing with her class.

She was not keen for the children in her charge to be forced to examine the darker chapters of Soviet history.

"The past is the past," she said. "The history of the famine, the killings, all the things Stalin did. I don't think we should bring them up. There's enough violence today as it is. If we start blaming each other… It's just not worth it."

To deny the truth of a nation's past is not only irresponsible, it is dangerous. If young minds are exposed to the dangers that lurk within society and through past government actions, they can be more vigilant in watching out for such things ever creeping up once more, even if it's on a smaller scale. In order to be a good citizen, one must not always take what the government says carte blanche; criticism, questioning, are all parts of a vibrant, healthy democracy, as well as a vibrant, healthy historical self-realization. To ignore the past is to deny the truth and sets a dangerous precedent in truth-denial, or at least searching for truth and evidences.

I fully admit however that "history" and "truth" are sometimes hard to piece together, but for things such as this article state (e.g. the Great Famine wrought during the 1930s in Ukraine), there is near universal confirmation that this did occur.

I personally do not buy this teacher's argument that examining Soviet wrong-doings would stir up a whole kettle of fish, so to speak. These people do not want to confront the truth simply because it's convenient to ignore it; it helps strengthen nationalism, and helps to make these students better "citizens of the state."

What sayest thou NSG.

[Altergo]

Communism wants control of the minds, like the Nazi's, except they do it in a less direct way. They hide the truth so that the next generation will follow in the footsteps in they're parents. In other words, brainwashing the youngsters.

[Ordo Drakul]

Sadly, the current climate in academia is to edit history to suit the editor's personal political preferences. It's always been that way, however-Constantine edited the Bible as not to reflect badly on the Empire he now ruled, Anna Comnenus wrote a heavily biased work on the reign of her father, and every historian has left out a fact or two to extol a patron's ancestors. History, like everything else, should be taken with a grain of salt.

[Minnas]

Sadly, the current climate in academia is to edit history to suit the editor's personal political preferences. It's always been that way, however-Constantine edited the Bible as not to reflect badly on the Empire he now ruled, Anna Comnenus wrote a heavily biased work on the reign of her father, and every historian has left out a fact or two to extol a patron's ancestors. History, like everything else, should be taken with a grain of salt.

You could almost say history, written history is always from the point of view of the writer.

[Lancaster of Wessex]

You could almost say history, written history is always from the point of view of the writer.

Absolutely. I just find it extremely unfortunate that state-instituted education has to give such a tainted, un-progressive take on their nation's history, despite widely available information being present; I only hope these students look elsewhere in addition to the "history" they are being given.

[Farnhamia]

Communism wants control of the minds, like the Nazi's, except they do it in a less direct way. They hide the truth so that the next generation will follow in the footsteps in they're parents. In other words, brainwashing the youngsters.

It might interest you to know that the Soviet Union no longer exists and that the Ukraine is a unitary semi-presidential republic.

I do agree that nations should face up to their own history, even if that means condemning actions of previous generations or governments.

[Minnas]

You could almost say history, written history is always from the point of view of the writer.

Absolutely. I just find it extremely unfortunate that state-instituted education has to give such a tainted, un-progressive take on their nation's history, despite widely available information being present; I only hope these students look elsewhere in addition to the "history" they are being given.

Hope! Hope is all we have in the end.

[Trefoilland]

We were considered defeated after Germany surrendered...

Haunts the Turkish Educational System since... 40 years?

[Lunatic Goofballs]

This article piqued my interest, especially after the whole "the Rape of Nanking was a lie!" debacle courtesy another poster.

My fear is one of not only historical revisionism (specifically dangerous revisionism such as Holocaust denial, or as above, the denial of Japanese atrocities in Nanking), but of people in a position of authority denying the teaching of their nation's darker happenings.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8119320.stm:

But not all young Ukrainians have an exclusively negative view of their 20th-Century history.

In Kiev, there is a vast monument to the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany: a sprawling bronze relief of soldiers bearing guns and bayonets.

"We love our history," said Svitlana, a young schoolteacher from the southern city of Odessa, on an outing with her class.

She was not keen for the children in her charge to be forced to examine the darker chapters of Soviet history.

"The past is the past," she said. "The history of the famine, the killings, all the things Stalin did. I don't think we should bring them up. There's enough violence today as it is. If we start blaming each other… It's just not worth it."

To deny the truth of a nation's past is not only irresponsible, it is dangerous. If young minds are exposed to the dangers that lurk within society and through past government actions, they can be more vigilant in watching out for such things ever creeping up once more, even if it's on a smaller scale. In order to be a good citizen, one must not always take what the government says carte blanche; criticism, questioning, are all parts of a vibrant, healthy democracy, as well as a vibrant, healthy historical self-realization. To ignore the past is to deny the truth and sets a dangerous precedent in truth-denial, or at least searching for truth and evidences.

I fully admit however that "history" and "truth" are sometimes hard to piece together, but for things such as this article state (e.g. the Great Famine wrought during the 1930s in Ukraine), there is near universal confirmation that this did occur.

I personally do not buy this teacher's argument that examining Soviet wrong-doings would stir up a whole kettle of fish, so to speak. These people do not want to confront the truth simply because it's convenient to ignore it; it helps strengthen nationalism, and helps to make these students better "citizens of the state."

What sayest thou NSG.

There are similar people in every country. An overabundance in national pride often leads people to whitewash or at least sugarcoat their own histories.

I can count on one hand the number of countries that can rationally argue that they don't have a dark chapter. And even those arguments are... well, arguable.

[Lancaster of Wessex]

There are similar people in every country. An overabundance in national pride often leads people to whitewash or at least sugarcoat their own histories.

I can count on one hand the number of countries that can rationally argue that they don't have a dark chapter. And even those arguments are... well, arguable.

I fully agree, every nation has it's "dark side" and some take decades to come to realize this; even now, my nation (Canada) is only coming to terms with the residential school abuse against First Nations that was rampant for decades, but I'm damn glad we are confronting these demons.

[Farnhamia]

Sadly, the current climate in academia is to edit history to suit the editor's personal political preferences. It's always been that way, however-Constantine edited the Bible as not to reflect badly on the Empire he now ruled, Anna Comnenus wrote a heavily biased work on the reign of her father, and every historian has left out a fact or two to extol a patron's ancestors. History, like everything else, should be taken with a grain of salt.

Source for Constantine having a direct hand in editing the Bible, please?

Yes, Anna Comnena's history is a tad weighted toward portraying her father in a good light.

"Every historian" is a grand generalization, not did "every historian" work for a patron (Thucydides, Herodotus, Tacitus).

I will agree that the historian's personal context - life, location, age - has an effect on the work.

[Treznor]

Communism wants control of the minds, like the Nazi's, except they do it in a less direct way. They hide the truth so that the next generation will follow in the footsteps in they're parents. In other words, brainwashing the youngsters.

Soviet-era communists aren't the only ones guilty of this behavior. The US has engaged in propaganda warfare for decades, and Mark Twain was known to throw the occasional barb at the US government for its role in the Philippines and Cuba. More recently, the neoconservative Bush administration played hardball with propaganda, leveraging corporate control over media interests to justify criminal acts like the invasion of Iraq.

I wouldn't single out the Communists, if I were you. Few nations can claim to be innocent.

[German Nightmare]

There's a huge difference between remembering what was and pointing fingers.

The former should come natural, the latter usually leads to problems, especially if those who were actually to blame are long gone.

I know of my country's history, I wouldn't want it any other way - that is, to live in ignorance of my country's darker past. However, I don't feel guilty and I'm not willing to take any blame for it, 'cause I didn't do anything.

I'm trying not to forget, and not to repeat past mistakes - as a person and as a group of people. Yet that doesn't mean I'm not able to live a perfectly normal life, which does include not thinking about things that happened all the time.

[Lancaster of Wessex]

There's a huge difference between remembering what was and pointing fingers.

The former should come natural, the latter usually leads to problems, especially if those who were actually to blame are long gone.

I know of my country's history, I wouldn't want it any other way - that is, to live in ignorance of my country's darker past. However, I don't feel guilty and I'm not willing to take any blame for it, 'cause I didn't do anything.

I'm trying not to forget, and not to repeat past mistakes - as a person and as a group of people. Yet that doesn't mean I'm not able to live a perfectly normal life, which does include not thinking about things that happened all the time.

I think that's a great way to look at history; acknowledging those wrongs while not feeling any personal guilt. They are sins of a previous generation, and people such as yourselves have learned from it, come to acknowledge and deplore it, and just live a normal life. Germany has confronted it's evil; I think nations that have not (such as Ukraine, perhaps) have a lot more fear, hence their unwillingness to confront that past.

[Lancaster of Wessex]

Communism wants control of the minds, like the Nazi's, except they do it in a less direct way. They hide the truth so that the next generation will follow in the footsteps in they're parents. In other words, brainwashing the youngsters.

Soviet-era communists aren't the only ones guilty of this behavior. The US has engaged in propaganda warfare for decades, and Mark Twain was known to throw the occasional barb at the US government for its role in the Philippines and Cuba. More recently, the neoconservative Bush administration played hardball with propaganda, leveraging corporate control over media interests to justify criminal acts like the invasion of Iraq.

I wouldn't single out the Communists, if I were you. Few nations can claim to be innocent.

I absolutely agree. In the height of the "war on terror," to question the government or even say that the US might have somewhat incurred the wrath of 9/11, you were instantly labeled a "traitor" guilty of treason, or perhaps even worse, "un-American." Powerful weapons used by the government to try and quell any discourse or opposition.

[Ravea]

There's no such thing as Historical Truth in the sense that history as we know it is just one side of a many-sided coin. The editors and writers of history tend to be quite biased (and usually the winners of wars) and only write from one perspective, ignoring the viewpoint of others. Of course, this isn't universal by any means, but defining history as it was in books is a poor way to go.

And yes, you're very right. People need to know where they come from. Not enough people realize in the United States, for example, that our nation was founded by what the British considered to be rebellious terrorists, or fail to fully take into account the genocide of Native American peoples and civilizations. Not to mention all the coups in South America and the Middle East that no one ever talks about.

Isn't there some saying about learning from History so it doesn't happen again?

[Treznor]

I absolutely agree. In the height of the "war on terror," to question the government or even say that the US might have somewhat incurred the wrath of 9/11, you were instantly labeled a "traitor" guilty of treason, or perhaps even worse, "un-American." Powerful weapons used by the government to try and quell any discourse or opposition.

The point being, of course, when we fail to learn from history and allow our leaders to operate on blind faith, they invariably abuse that power. Apparently, we seem to need this lesson refreshed from time to time, because we keep making the same mistake.

[Lancaster of Wessex]

There's no such thing as Historical Truth in the sense that history as we know it is just one side of a many-sided coin. The editors and writers of history tend to be quite biased (and usually the winners of wars) and only write from one perspective, ignoring the viewpoint of others. Of course, this isn't universal by any means, but defining history as it was in books is a poor way to go.
...
Isn't there some saying about learning from History so it doesn't happen again?

I concur, as I noted in the op, that "history" and "truth" often don't go together, hence the need to be vigilant, and to visit history, and keep re-visiting it, re-examining, look for new evidence, etc...

And yes, that is the classic quote about history; and people DO keep forgetting it, hence the same mistakes are kept being made.

[Holy Cheese and Shoes]

It's true revising history has gone on since their were historians, but I think the prime reason for widespread ignorance of a 'dark past' is schooling curricula.

If you take whatever you were taught at school as true, and then never check it out (which is understandable if you don't enjoy history), then you will take that viewpoint with you through your life no matter how inaccurate. And teaching about how bad your country was, is apparently something governments think will make them unpopular.

Having been educated in the UK, I was given barely any information on the atrocities carried out by the British Empire or how it was eventually divided up and given away. And yet this is probably one of the biggest factors in how others build a view of Britain around the world, and is therefore incredibly relevant.

[Lancaster of Wessex]

It's true revising history has gone on since their were historians, but I think the prime reason for widespread ignorance of a 'dark past' is schooling curricula.

If you take whatever you were taught at school as true, and then never check it out (which is understandable if you don't enjoy history), then you will take that viewpoint with you through your life no matter how inaccurate. And teaching about how bad your country was, is apparently something governments think will make them unpopular.

Having been educated in the UK, I was given barely any information on the atrocities carried out by the British Empire or how it was eventually divided up and given away. And yet this is probably one of the biggest factors in how others build a view of Britain around the world, and is therefore incredibly relevant.

I concur 100% once more. Airbrushing history is a terrible crime.

[Glen Belt]

It's true revising history has gone on since their were historians, but I think the prime reason for widespread ignorance of a 'dark past' is schooling curricula.

If you take whatever you were taught at school as true, and then never check it out (which is understandable if you don't enjoy history), then you will take that viewpoint with you through your life no matter how inaccurate. And teaching about how bad your country was, is apparently something governments think will make them unpopular.

Having been educated in the UK, I was given barely any information on the atrocities carried out by the British Empire or how it was eventually divided up and given away. And yet this is probably one of the biggest factors in how others build a view of Britain around the world, and is therefore incredibly relevant.

haha my history teacher wouldnt shut up about british atrocities!

[German Nightmare]

There's a huge difference between remembering what was and pointing fingers.

The former should come natural, the latter usually leads to problems, especially if those who were actually to blame are long gone.

I know of my country's history, I wouldn't want it any other way - that is, to live in ignorance of my country's darker past. However, I don't feel guilty and I'm not willing to take any blame for it, 'cause I didn't do anything.

I'm trying not to forget, and not to repeat past mistakes - as a person and as a group of people. Yet that doesn't mean I'm not able to live a perfectly normal life, which does include not thinking about things that happened all the time.

I think that's a great way to look at history; acknowledging those wrongs while not feeling any personal guilt. They are sins of a previous generation, and people such as yourselves have learned from it, come to acknowledge and deplore it, and just live a normal life. Germany has confronted it's evil; I think nations that have not (such as Ukraine, perhaps) have a lot more fear, hence their unwillingness to confront that past.

Thanks. I believe it's the only way to live up to and with one's past while not letting it get in the way of the present and future.
As for the history and truth debate - yes, to a certain extent history is written by the victors. However, with enough research and evidence, it is possible for different parties to agree on a version of history that comes close to historical accuracy. Unless, of course, someone isn't willing to either do the research, or should (new/old) facts (re)surface, to change what is written in history books. (And that has nothing to do with revisionism of the bad kind, as in ignoring facts)

[Ifreann]

This article piqued my interest, especially after the whole "the Rape of Nanking was a lie!" debacle courtesy another poster.

My fear is one of not only historical revisionism (specifically dangerous revisionism such as Holocaust denial, or as above, the denial of Japanese atrocities in Nanking), but of people in a position of authority denying the teaching of their nation's darker happenings.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8119320.stm:

But not all young Ukrainians have an exclusively negative view of their 20th-Century history.

In Kiev, there is a vast monument to the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany: a sprawling bronze relief of soldiers bearing guns and bayonets.

"We love our history," said Svitlana, a young schoolteacher from the southern city of Odessa, on an outing with her class.

She was not keen for the children in her charge to be forced to examine the darker chapters of Soviet history.

"The past is the past," she said. "The history of the famine, the killings, all the things Stalin did. I don't think we should bring them up. There's enough violence today as it is. If we start blaming each other… It's just not worth it."

To deny the truth of a nation's past is not only irresponsible, it is dangerous. If young minds are exposed to the dangers that lurk within society and through past government actions, they can be more vigilant in watching out for such things ever creeping up once more, even if it's on a smaller scale. In order to be a good citizen, one must not always take what the government says carte blanche; criticism, questioning, are all parts of a vibrant, healthy democracy, as well as a vibrant, healthy historical self-realization. To ignore the past is to deny the truth and sets a dangerous precedent in truth-denial, or at least searching for truth and evidences.

I fully admit however that "history" and "truth" are sometimes hard to piece together, but for things such as this article state (e.g. the Great Famine wrought during the 1930s in Ukraine), there is near universal confirmation that this did occur.

I personally do not buy this teacher's argument that examining Soviet wrong-doings would stir up a whole kettle of fish, so to speak. These people do not want to confront the truth simply because it's convenient to ignore it; it helps strengthen nationalism, and helps to make these students better "citizens of the state."

What sayest thou NSG.

There are similar people in every country. An overabundance in national pride often leads people to whitewash or at least sugarcoat their own histories.

I can count on one hand the number of countries that can rationally argue that they don't have a dark chapter. And even those arguments are... well, arguable.

Obviously [country of origin] has done no wrong, evar!

[Hoyteca]

If you never learn about past mistakes, how will you ever learn how they were made? If you don't know how they were made, how can you prevent them from happening again?

We learn history because history repeats itself. People who deny that the Holocaust or WWII happen are just setting the world up for another Hitler. Sorry for the Godwin.

[Lancaster of Wessex]

As for the history and truth debate - yes, to a certain extent history is written by the victors. However, with enough research and evidence, it is possible for different parties to agree on a version of history that comes close to historical accuracy. Unless, of course, someone isn't willing to either do the research, or should (new/old) facts (re)surface, to change what is written in history books. (And that has nothing to do with revisionism of the bad kind, as in ignoring facts)

That's the beauty of history: despite occurring decades or centuries ago, new evidence is still being unveiled, new theories being reached, and would explain why historians are still churning books out about e.g. Hitler and the National Socialist regime.