Not that releasing the JFK assassination files would rewrite an extensive period of history, but the precedent remains: the grim truth of history often lies forever buried in the archives of state.
However, outside of Iran few believe this accounts, precisely because there are few written documents available about what went on during the famine and what role, if any, the British government had in it. If the documents were released, we would have a definite answer after a century, but I don't think they will be declassified and released anytime soon.
We did something similar with India. We also allowed the Irish famine to happen too.
History does say we were not a very kind empire - causing famine was not beyond us.
One of the tricks I came up with back then: Look up any Wikipedia article on US involvement in Latin America. Change the language from English to Spanish. Same topic. Sometimes vastly different reality.
I do it regularly (across a couple of languages other than English) when reading about current events, cultural artifacts, political entities, and most of all history.
And who you ask -- eg. the homeless living in unimaginable slums might give a different answer.
That said, most of the colonies fought hard for getting rid of the British.
We've basically semi-privatised a lot of our schools under the academy system - they are run like businesses and have a lot more freedom over the curriculum leading to all sorts of horror stories.
I also went to a Catholic faith school so I think there was already good reason to be honest with history. England was not very kind to Catholics either - apparently a BBC show demonstrates this quite well.
My learnings about the empire have been through personal curiosity. At first, the whole "largest empire in history" was a curiosity. The more I learned, however, the more disgusted I became.
Educated? India's literacy rate in 1947 was 12%
Look at british literacy rate when they became a big empire. https://www1.umassd.edu/ir/resources/laboreducation/literacy...
Even though it might be because of industrialization and not colonization, India could have industrialized faster without being a colonial subject.
Not really. Locals would build it as well, just maybe later. Technology spreads disregarding the governments or countries.
Technological advances secured West’s domination over much of the world for centuries, despite having smaller population. Competitors were brought to submission using superior technology — China (Opium wars), Native Americans, Japan (WW II) and nearly every case I can think of.
So, sooner is massively better than later.
I find it the most disgusting aspect of my country and its people. Nationalism at its worst.
The same argument can be made for the Roman Empire. Empires of the past are looked down on because they are a unified machine of violence, a center of evil we can point to and hate.
Creating civilization is brutal, but the alternative is much scarier. A world of tribes and decentralized violence & oppression toward no end. Just as much pain, but not recorded, all in vain.
You can't put all European countries in a single pot here, only a small part of them were leading empires. Most of other countries/nations were incorporated in empires against their will and suffered greatly too.
So what "most other nations" are left, except for some easterns states?
And that not all the people them were happy patriots, sure - thats common in empires. (and I don't like empires btw.) But the ordinary person was pretty much pro empire at that time. And that meant also conquering and ruling other nations and people.
Firstly, Europe is not a country, it is a continent of countries and many did not partake in colonialism. Referring to Europe as one homogenous group is one reason Americans are derided, because it is ignorant.
Secondly, the US has an unhealthy superiority complex and considers itself exceptional among all other nations, despite being pretty much the same as any other Empire that has existed in the past.
The fact that (to an outside observer) they consider themselves immune to the weakness that destroyed previous superpowers is another reason they are derided, because those weaknesses are pretty apparent to anyone who isn't a flag-waving jingoist fanatic.
Thirdly, those countries that did engage on colonialism no longer do and the people living there today have basically nothing to do with it. They deride Americans because they are in fact engaging in colonial-type practices today, despite the lessons of the past.
It is an exception (I speak as a European). It was the last of the great powers, and the first to figure out that a loan is a better weapon than a gun. The American empire is qualitatively different from all European empires.
> They deride Americans because they are in fact engaging in colonial-type practices today, despite the lessons of the past.
Don't kid yourself that Europeans just happened to learn how immoral empire is at the exact moment their empires fell apart. It's more like the Americans figured out (lucked into?) a better form of empire, and nobody could compete with their first-mover advantage.
We'll see if China can outcompete America at its own game, I guess.
Aren't you being just as ignorant when you talk about Americans as one homogeneous group? Just because it is one country doesn't mean each state isn't as distinct as every country in the EU. Alabama and Oregon are as different as France and Slovakia.
>Secondly, the US has an unhealthy superiority complex and considers itself exceptional among all other nations, despite being pretty much the same as any other Empire that has existed in the past.
There are places in the US where a lot of people feel this way, but in my experience the majority don't feel this way. At least where I live most people have traveled extensively outside the US and don't feel superior. Again your are ignorantly lumping all Americans together and imply that we all feel the same way when really it's just a vocal minority in certain states.
>Thirdly, those countries that did engage on colonialism no longer do and the people living there today have basically nothing to do with it.
That doesn't mean anything. White Americans today have basically nothing to do with black slavery, yet we still have to face the consequences of what white americans did in the past. In fact I've research my family history down every line back to when they came to the new world, and I know for a fact that none of my ancestors were involved in slavery. But as a white american I don't get a free pass on slavery just because I can prove I and mine had nothing to do with it.
Likewise, as a European, you don't get a free pass on colonialism just because it wasn't you specifically that participated in it. People today are still suffering as a result of your past colonialist actions and policies.
Right having, companys to do it for you, with support of bribed locals- moral advances- they are basically more abstraction layers to the horrors.
WWI was a weird point in history when we could build immovable objects, but not yet create unstoppable forces. So the great powers built two massive immovable objects, and simply ground them against each other, day after day, because they didn't really know what else to do. Lubricating those grinding surfaces with men and materiel became an existential requirement for those powers, and the British drained the colonies, and themselves, of wealth in order to survive. Incidentally, lots of that wealth ended up in the US, which had a nice line in war profiteering going on for a lot of WWI.
I feel for everyone who died because of that stupid bloody war, but I'm not sure I can blame the British: once they'd got themselves into that situation they didn't have much choice. I don't even blame the Americans for profiting - all the other great powers were busy tearing each other apart because of their 19th century mindsets, it would be kinda stupid for the Americans, with their thoroughly 20th century mindset, not to just sit back and watch.
Few? This is the most mainstream narrative in the parts of Europe I know of.
Instead they would need to wait until 1865, 33-23 years later..
Thanks dang
ps: people I didn't mean to stay ignorant, but hinting at rethinking what we're teaching. History is extremely subtle and trimmed far too much for kids (hence the bad blend I described above).
Hopefully moving forward we won't have to worry so much about the revisionism. With everything being documented the internet, we most likely will just have to content with sifting through it all to find the truth.
110%. In America, I would say we ought to be teaching history as fast as possible: We are a Republic of immigrants, fighting for the preservation of an idea - The Constitution of the United States of America. By the way, that constitution happens to make us all equal by default. That's a pretty important lesson for us here to remember in these divisive political times.
It depends. If the history lessons are strongly indoctrinating, then it's better not to have them. How many of the very good principles of Communism are being dismissed because people have been taught that communism == the Russian implementation of it?
So that's where that attitude / excuse comes from whenever I talk to americans about the bombings of Japan?! Is that literally taught in history classes? It always seemed to me like a statement made by an indoctrinated mind. It was nuclear bombs used on civilians in two densely populated cities. How can people spin that into something good?
The bit left out in most history books is the fact that the atomic bomb was used not to destroy Japanese cities but instead to demonstrate to the Soviets, who by an earlier treaty, had declared war on Japan and were invading from the North, that the US could oppose them in both Japan and Europe.
The US didn't really need to use atomic weapons for any tactical reason. Fire bombing had already proven that a city could be wiped out with traditional ordinance.
That said, "there was no reason to use that awful thing" as Eisenhower said. Truman was "itching to use the bomb" to deter the Soviets in Europe and Asia.
There wasn't any reason for a land invasion and military leaders in the US echoed this, and they were already defeated and going through conditions of surrender. Hirohito was a really bad guy, and stubbornly refused any terms that would have him step down. Miscommunication then led to the bomb drop, which few know. If you want to know more about this Google the 'Mokusatsu incident.'
Then in a massive miscarriage lf justice, Hirohito remained royalty and Tojo was martyred as "the bad guy."
All knowledge is biased to some degree, just like all people are dishonest to some degree - but to say you cannot trust anyone at all or that everyone is equally trustworthy would plainly be a misapprehension of reality.
A good education teaches people to treat knowledge skeptically and develop judgment about it, but to dismiss it all is as ignorant as believing it all. As someone once said about IT security, 'there is no wisdom in trusting no one'.
I'll add the controversial (on HN) statement that such skill is what a liberal arts education teaches, and I believe it is the most valuable skill to learn.
Maybe we could:
- teach our more kids and adults to be healthier - teach them to be more than physically fit (as in master of slow and/or fast sport) - teach them to be wise about society, groups and empathy - teach them to be stronger emotionally
It's probably possible to have a culture that is strong yet friendly to foreigners, traits that reinforce themselves because you don't fear.