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.