Lies they told you in history class

[Supertegwyn]

ew! no!
i did make an effort to educate myself outside of school (as everyone in my circle of friends bloody had to) but WW1 never struck my interest. i'll get to it, but for now i do know my way around general history, science, english, ma-uuuuuh... not so much maths. i understand it, but i'm terrible at it.
oh! and marine biology! i do love my octopuses;D

Good onya mate, you should do to James Cook University in Cairns to do marine biology, brillant little campus and a great town in general, recently scuba dove the GBR, and it's amazing!

that sounds cool;D but that's only my little hobby on the side, by real future (if i play my cards right) is in rendering for games and CG and junk, so i'm going for the digital arts course here in canberra.

Wait what? You live in Canberra? You and me both!

no way! oh, which college did you go to?!

Canberra High and then Hawker.

 

[Supertegwyn]

ew! no!
i did make an effort to educate myself outside of school (as everyone in my circle of friends bloody had to) but WW1 never struck my interest. i'll get to it, but for now i do know my way around general history, science, english, ma-uuuuuh... not so much maths. i understand it, but i'm terrible at it.
oh! and marine biology! i do love my octopuses;D

Good onya mate, you should do to James Cook University in Cairns to do marine biology, brillant little campus and a great town in general, recently scuba dove the GBR, and it's amazing!

that sounds cool;D but that's only my little hobby on the side, by real future (if i play my cards right) is in rendering for games and CG and junk, so i'm going for the digital arts course here in canberra.

Wait what? You live in Canberra? You and me both!

no way! oh, which college did you go to?!

Canberra High and then Hawker.

ah, chisholm high and then erindale.

No wonder you know nothing about history

 

[immortalfrieza]

So guys, what kind of lies, if any, did you learn in your history class?

That history class is important or even slightly relevant to anyone besides historians and people that work in museums. Basically, that history class has any justification for it's existence whatsoever is the lie.

As a fun exercise let's assume you aren't in fact trolling. Please defend your statement.

I ask you to defend it because, as the existence of History classes implies, you seem to be making a claim that goes against what the majority of people believe. You may be right, if so please explain how. Or more likely you were taught History poorly and don't understand the true, and very important, reasons for studying the past: in which case you have my sympathy as that is not entirely your fault.

I'll try to defend it, but it'll be hard to do so without history buffs everywhere coming out of the woodwork to tell me that I'm full of it. I should first clarify that I enjoy learning about history, I watch the history channel all the time and spent much of my youth reading about Dinosaurs, lost civilizations, and so on for my own entertainment. I just see history classes as an incredibly bad waste of time to the vast majority of people.

I'll go more in depth as to why I think history class is pointless:

To start with, how many people do you know or even think is likely to get any sort of job (the entire point of school BTW) that even slightly involves history? How many of them already have? Compared to the entire planet's workforce a pretty miniscule amount I'll bet. Of that small amount, how many of those people do you think learned anything of actual worth to their professions in grade school, most of that comes from college and simple independent research.

A common defense of history class is the phrase "those who do not learn from the mistakes history are doomed to repeat it." However, this phrase fails to take into account that most people, for example, are not going to find themselves in situations to which knowing when the French Revolution happened and why is going to be in any way relevant. That particular case is very unlikely even if you live in France. If they insist on making people go through history classes the very least they could do is teach subjects that are relevant to modern society, not things that are anywhere from decades to millenia old.

History classes are, in my opinion, just another one of the largely useless subjects and classes that are taught in basic school, and that should be phased out in favor of ones that are, and the money saved from doing so be put towards allowing everyone to get a college education without having to pay through the a!^ for it.

 

[SidingWithTheEnemy]

I'm seriously enclined to write: "The cake is a lie" but then again... Oh well, too late.

OT:
At school I learned that France won both World Wars and that they were the good guys. It's not true, the internet told me the truth... check it out for yourself [link]http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html[/link]


Nah, just kidding I always knew that France never was a big winner.
Seriously though, they taught us that the Middle Age existed, and guess what, that's probably wrong. It didn't.
No, I'm not making this up => looki heere: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_time_hypothesis

 

[Dimitriov]

So guys, what kind of lies, if any, did you learn in your history class?

That history class is important or even slightly relevant to anyone besides historians and people that work in museums. Basically, that history class has any justification for it's existence whatsoever is the lie.

As a fun exercise let's assume you aren't in fact trolling. Please defend your statement.

I ask you to defend it because, as the existence of History classes implies, you seem to be making a claim that goes against what the majority of people believe. You may be right, if so please explain how. Or more likely you were taught History poorly and don't understand the true, and very important, reasons for studying the past: in which case you have my sympathy as that is not entirely your fault.

I'll try to defend it, but it'll be hard to do so without history buffs everywhere coming out of the woodwork to tell me that I'm full of it. I should first clarify that I enjoy learning about history, I watch the history channel all the time and spent much of my youth reading about Dinosaurs, lost civilizations, and so on for my own entertainment. I just see history classes as an incredibly bad waste of time to the vast majority of people.

I'll go more in depth as to why I think history class is pointless:

To start with, how many people do you know or even think is likely to get any sort of job (the entire point of school BTW) that even slightly involves history? How many of them already have? Compared to the entire planet's workforce a pretty miniscule amount I'll bet. Of that small amount, how many of those people do you think learned anything of actual worth to their professions in grade school, most of that comes from college and simple independent research.

A common defense of history class is the phrase "those who do not learn from the mistakes history are doomed to repeat it." However, this phrase fails to take into account that most people, for example, are not going to find themselves in situations to which knowing when the French Revolution happened and why is going to be in any way relevant. That particular case is very unlikely even if you live in France. If they insist on making people go through history classes the very least they could do is teach subjects that are relevant to modern society, not things that are anywhere from decades to millenia old.

History classes are, in my opinion, just another one of the largely useless subjects and classes that are taught in basic school, and that should be phased out in favor of ones that are, and the money saved from doing so be put towards allowing everyone to get a college education without having to pay through the a!^ for it.

A good answer and a fair one. However, I would say that what I called the more likely scenario is in fact correct. Which is not surprising as that is very common.

While I do think a general understanding of history is important to understanding the world and policies one faces in everyday life (for example what your legal rights are and why, or why certain groups may hold strong opinions of your country, despite having never been there) it is nevertheless true that most people will rarely find a use for knowing the date William the conqueror invaded England.

However, the best reason to study History at any age, and it ought to be better emphasized, is to learn how to research information when you need to know it and even more importantly how to interpret it. That skill set will be useful to almost every one no matter what their occupation is.

As for the actual study of the past events themselves, a clear understanding of the past does wonders for understanding the present. To use an Americanized example: if you don't know your history you might very well end up assuming that everything CNN or FOXnews tells you is true, and that is a dangerous assumption to make. A clearer understanding of the world is never a bad thing.

Also I wouldn't personally characterize school as being there for the purpose of getting people jobs, but that's a separate issue...

Some jobs that make use of history are: historian, lawyer, politician, diplomat, archaeologist, anthropologist, political scientist, museum curator, author, journalist, history teacher, librarian, tour guide, artist, documentary film maker, restorer, preserver, antiques assessor, antiquities dealer, and many more.

 

[JFrog84]

When it comes to history in British schools the significant thing is not lies they could potentially teach you, but rather the large amount of British history that is left out.

Now I understand that British history is a long subject and also some simplification is needed but the actual teaching of British history is poor. There seems to be a focus on historical powers there were not British, namely the US, Russia (Both Tsarist and Soviet) and Germany (Weimar and Nazi). Now what we were taught about those nations was fairly accurate considering it was secondary/high school education but still the lack of any real analysis of British history was annoying. The industrial revolution was studied but often only in the context of gender studies or class studies. Both relevant areas but not the only way the industrial revolution was significant.

So history classes in the UK, in my experience, don't lie about what they do teach but are more selective in what they do teach. Topics such as Ireland, the Indian partition, British Palestine and the even the greater idea of the British Empire rarely were mentioned in my education. Good thing I loved history and did it at university.

But that is what primary school is for. Yeah we do get taught mainly world history in secondary school ( did have some british history in there in year 8) but I got taught loads of our history before that. Granted there is still loads that did get left out but they make sure we get the basics.

OT: In the UK we get taught how to compare sources from both sides and how to try and figure out the accuracy and any bias it may have, rather than being spoon fed with 'This is what happened' and X is good and Y is bad

 

[Scars Unseen]

Don't forget that the Lusitania was carrying ammunition. They never told us that in school. They always tried to make it seem like the Germans just upped and sank an ocean liner for the hell of it.

As proof of ignorance, I didn't know that till you posted that. You re-learn things everyday I guess.

The higher up in U.S. History you go, the more truth you get. I had A.P. U.S. History in high school. The theme of the class seemed to be "we are kind of huge dicks".

Try taking an upper level college class on the Vietnam War. Then you get to learn how we are often huge incompetent dicks.

 

[Racistman3d]

I was taught by an idiot teacher that the whole Korean peninsula had been completely taken over by communists before the Korean War peacefully, and that all the Korean people were happy and loved their government, but the evil West came in and tried to kill them, and failed miserably, and now all of Korea is completely communist, and that it is basically some kind of idyllic paradise that has completely fulfilled the classless utopia Marx wanted.

To be fair the teacher was fired not long after, she was a hardcore communist supporter and constantly reminded us she had lived on a compound lead by some religious nutjob for 20 years, and her son had a pornography addiction. Oddly all of my other teachers for history where excellent and very rounded, so I just assume she was an anomaly in the Australian education system.

 

[Zhadramekel]

Probably the gold medal for history class lies was in my GCSE class was when our tutor told us Hippocrates was coming to visit (we weren't dumb enough to believe him). He came back about 20 minutes later dressed in a fake beard and a toga. Needless to say we all had a good laugh that day.

 

[Torrasque]

I live in Canada, and had a really funny/ADD social teacher, so I was never taught any lies in history (that I know of)
Considering I use the internet quite a lot, and its been 3 years since high school, I am pretty sure I would have caught any lies by now.
It must be a non-Canadian thing and/or a terrible teacher thing.
/shrug

 

[Pegghead]

I wouldn't say they're lies, at the end of the day you've gotta give kids a broad picture that they'll pay attention to (go tell a kid about the intricate policies and treaties that made up World War 2 beyond "LET'S SHOOT NAZIS!" and see how long they last before nodding off).

As for me, they would say that Hitler was wrong dance around Australia's involvement in the Gallipoli campaign (across the pond and never heard of it? It's a pretty big deal over here, even helped spawn a goddamn biscuit), saying that it was pretty much when Australia went full on Rambo and showed all the other countries how it was done. Not to mention all the spirit and bravery and courage and famous medics that used donkeys and what-not.

In reality, while all soldiers are brave, there was great sacrifice and it does have a place in our history, we were basically on England's leash and put on a smile for 8 months in hell after receiving wrong directions all the while losing thousands of soldiers and ultimately needing to retreat in what was a stalemate.

Still, ANZAC day's cool and they made a decent movie (and they're lovely biscuits).

 

[ExileNZ]

That, when white people colonised Australia the indigenous population just sort of evaporated.

Ouuuuuuuuch!

No such luck in New Zealand - we're never allowed to forget what Whitey did in the name of the Crown. That said, it's almost the other way around - we never really learned about the violence on the Maori side.

Don't get me wrong - Whitey did some nasty shit in the name of that crown...

 

[KarlMonster]

That Columbus "discovered" North America. It's funny cause the first question I asked after being told that is, "How do you discover something that's already got people living there?"

A better phrasing would be

"Discovered to European settlers"

I suppose those pesky Vikings don't count.

They didn't pass that knowledge on, so nope.

This is going to be *slightly* off topic because my public school history education taught me... almost nothing that I can remember. Here's what happened with those Vikings and how they didn't discover North America.

Climatologists are still trying to understand the 'Medieval Warm Period', and the 'Little Ice Age' (go ahead and wiki those) that made a small southern area in Greenland habitable for about 250 years. So between its own obscurity, and cultural-centric history teaching, a small fraction of the world knows that there were Norsemen living in Greenland during the warm period.

'Living' needs to be put in quotes here. It can't really have been that warm for more than 80-100 years, but - like what is normal for Norway - Greenland was getting warm ocean currents for a while. When the local climate cooled off, the houses had outer walls with at least a meter of sod and earth for insulation. Even the method of insulation was problematic, because if you use sod for insulation, that's less pasture for livestock. Yet there was a small community there with their own Roman Catholic bishop.

If there were any local resources to start with, they ran low quickly. The community traded with Scandinavia and England for their needs, but its hard to imagine how they could come up with the currency to import all that they could possibly need. Here's where Leif Ericson and the Icelandic Sagas come in. Leif is regarded as an explorer, but he and his sons were more like entrepeneurs. Why buy lumber and furs from Iceland, England, or Norway, when you can harvest them yourself and sell them in Greenland? The Sagas describe finding a place with trees, animals, and a native people. This worked out for several months - until somehow the Norsemen made the natives mad. When they left the settlement they took everything of value - including the nails.

Did the Norsemen 'discover' anything? Not really. They weren't even the first to piss off native inhabitants.

More off-topic:
This is a pubic cervix announcement: set-dancing tincleas with twing twang

 

[Discon]

Norway, Denmark and Sweden have been in several "unions", though they usually involved Norway and either Sweden or Denmark. This was in the 1600s or so.

I'm half Danish and half Norwegian. We learned in our Norwegian school that we were in a union with Denmark, while my mother says that she was taught that "Denmark owned Norway". I don't know which one is true, and I'm sure the lines were a bit blurry, but it is quite a big difference.

 

[Murderiser]

I'm seriously enclined to write: "The cake is a lie" but then again... Oh well, too late.

OT:
At school I learned that France won both World Wars and that they were the good guys. It's not true, the internet told me the truth... check it out for yourself [link]http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html[/link]


Nah, just kidding I always knew that France never was a big winner.
Seriously though, they taught us that the Middle Age existed, and guess what, that's probably wrong. It didn't.
No, I'm not making this up => looki heere: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_time_hypothesis

This must be troll. I mean, really? No historian takes that theory even REMOTELY seriously, seeing as it is contradicted by astrological records, the passing of Halley's comet and that little thing known as CARBON DATING.

 

[deus-ex-machina]

I had a fantastic experience of history lessons growing up. One of my teachers, George Stapleton, was feared, revered but also a very clever man. He would teach you the facts and he would make you find the evidence. He didn't show any patriotism or bias towards any country although he did hate the odd individual and possibly glorified a couple of others like FDR.

So the quality and quantity of what was taught couldn't be scrutinised. It was simply that we did not learn much about the UK. At GCSE we learnt about Ireland and the USA. Oh, 'modern history' too, from 1900 onwards but again, heavily focused on foreign nations.

I got an A* for GCSE (not to boast, but to show I had competant skills for the subject), but I dropped it at A-level partly because the chosen modules were to be about India, more of the USA and more Ireland. I really wanted to learn about ancient history - any - or at least some British history taking place in Britain. I myself am not patriotic but it is quite lame for me to say that I know more about modern American history than modern UK history.

But granted, this was years ago now, so I've probably caught up.

 

[Pat8u]

luckily I go to Catholic/not taking the old testament seriously school so I still learn history as everyone else is learning it. BUT shouldn't kids be taught both sides of arguments so that they could learn,that there is no evidence towards creationism instead of one or the other

School should be more neutral opioned

 

[Tyrant T100]

The most biased view of WW2 possible.
France and Britain declared war on Germany to save the Jews.
Stalin was the nicest guys around.
95% of the course was the holocaust rather than the history of the war that we were meant to be studying.