What Japanese history lessons leave out - a BBC article

[Oberon]

A while ago we had a conversation on here about how the Second World War is taught in German and Japanese schools. Whilst we had a good overview of the German system, it was a bit harder to get one of the Japanese.
Here's an article on the Japanese history cirriculum and how it differs to other nations:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21226068

Personally I do worry a lot about Japanese history education, that the nation is breeding a generation of people who do not understand why Japans neighbours are so sore about how they were treated by the Japanese in the war, and that may in turn lead to raised tensions and aggression.

[Stealhead]

Interesting article.

Thing is most every nation tells its "clean" version of history.

[Oberon]

This is true, when I went through the education system in the UK there was scant mention of Mers-el-Kébir.

[Sailor Steve]

None of us learns any of the bad stuff in school. The difference is that in most western countries you stumble across it sooner or later. You don't have to go to another country before it's even mentioned.

Fascinating article, Jamie. Thanks for the link. :sunny:

[Tribesman]

This is true, when I went through the education system in the UK there was scant mention of Mers-el-Kébir.

But did they teach about the foul frenchies launching air raids against Gibralter?

[Platapus]

Thanks for posting that article. Most interesting to see history from a different viewpoint.

And yeah, every nation cherry picks and sugar coats their own history. I guess you can't have the younglings learn the real history of their country until they are older.

[CaptainMattJ.]

This is true, when I went through the education system in the UK there was scant mention of Mers-el-Kébir.
In the U.S we dont spend a terrible amount of time on WW2, we spend, in total, maybe a month covering it, and that is spread out over something around 3-4 history classes (8th grade history, World history, and U.S history for me is when i covered world war two) that essentially teach the exact same thing. For instance, World History teaches the same things, and for the same amount of time, when covering WW2 as U.S history does. i took a WW2 class as an elective, it was horribly easy and i barely learned anything new, except for some interesting little facts here and there, such as how the russians would teach dogs to get their food/reward from underneath tanks, then strap them with explosives and send them at the germans.

[Stealhead]

Thanks for posting that article. Most interesting to see history from a different viewpoint.

And yeah, every nation cherry picks and sugar coats their own history. I guess you can't have the younglings learn the real history of their country until they are older.


Even then history involves much interpretation you can look at any event from many different views and ones views (nationalistic,liberal,conservative,crazy) also is a factor.

@CaptainMattJ I learned about the tank killing dogs on my own while I was in school.Of course the problem with a tank killing dog is it only works once then the enemy shoots every dog that they see just in case it might be a bomb dog.I also heard that the dogs did not know what tank to attack of course so they where just as likely to run under a Soviet tank as a German tank.

Don't let your schooling get in the way of your education if you are a human that is.For the dogs better to use them as guards than bombs.

[Platapus]

But by gum we sure do cover the civil war.

In US schools, American history consists of

Stuff that happened a long time ago
Nothing happens
Nothing happens
Revolutionary war (which we won, single handedly, all by ourselves)
nothing happens
nothing happens
CIVIL WAR (which we won single handedly against our selves)
CIVIL WAR
CIVIL WAR
Nothing happens
Nothing happens
Industrial revolution (but which one is not clear or what happened, just that the US was the bestest)
Nothing happens
WWI (just that we won it... single handedly..all by ourselves)
Nothing happens
Nothing happens
Great depression but not really getting into how or what really happened
Nothing happens
Nothing happens
Out of the clear, suddenly with no warning WWII (which really started in 1941) which we did win single handedly all by ourselves
Nothing happens
Nothing happens
time to graduate.

That's history in public schools when I went through. :/\\!! So glad I cultivated an independent interest in history as a grub.

[CaptainMattJ.]

But by gum we sure do cover the civil war.

In US schools, American history consists of

Stuff that happened a long time ago
Nothing happens
Nothing happens
Revolutionary war (which we won, single handedly, all by ourselves)
nothing happens
nothing happens
CIVIL WAR (which we won single handedly against our selves)
CIVIL WAR
CIVIL WAR
Nothing happens
Nothing happens
Industrial revolution (but which one is not clear or what happened, just that the US was the bestest)
Nothing happens
WWI (just that we won it... single handedly..all by ourselves)
Nothing happens
Nothing happens
Great depression but not really getting into how or what really happened
Nothing happens
Nothing happens
Out of the clear, suddenly with no warning WWII (which really started in 1941) which we did win single handedly all by ourselves
Nothing happens
Nothing happens
time to graduate.

That's history in public schools when I went through. :/\\!! So glad I cultivated an independent interest in history as a grub.
i dont know how long ago you went through but this is horribly inaccurate now, students now, in U.S history at least, learn about everything. They learn about the colonial period, and all of my teachers have highlighted the fact that the americans blew the problem out of proportion in the revolutionary war, and of how france was one of the biggest reasons we came out on top.

We covered the years after, then the war of 1812, the great expansion into the west, The industrial revolution and the smaller wars in the latter half of the 1800s, such as the mexican-american war and spanish american wars, to WW1, the 1920s, the depression, WW2, 50s, Vietnam and the cold war, 80s, and the gulf war. And all without the ultra-nationalist Go-america attitudes either, it was more neutral than you claim it was. That was my experience, and its pretty dam recent too.

In World History its pretty broad and neutral too, i was surprised how my world history teacher dealt with the russian revolution and the times after, she didn't just recite the anti-communist tirade, she taught about all aspects of communism. We covered 1700s imperialism, napoleon, the russian revolution, ww1 and 2, the franco-prussian war, the chinese civil war, a whole broad range of subjects. Thought to be honest, that teacher was the worst one i ever had, not in terms of her teaching skills but of her as a person. Horribly sexist and constantly infuriated with us, especially men, and i'm not even blowing that out of proportion either. She spent 10 minutes out of a period one time grilling this student who arrived late frequently, ten minutes out of the period for something so mundane and unimportant to the rest of us. A good teacher but a horrible person.

[Madox58]

Uh hun. And just how much about the Wars in and around Ohio did you get some teachin on?
:hmmm:

[Takeda Shingen]

i dont know how long ago you went through but this is horribly inaccurate now, students now, in U.S history at least, learn about everything. They learn about the colonial period, and all of my teachers have highlighted the fact that the americans blew the problem out of proportion in the revolutionary war, and of how france was one of the biggest reasons we came out on top.

We covered the years after, then the war of 1812, the great expansion into the west, The industrial revolution and the smaller wars in the latter half of the 1800s, such as the mexican-american war and spanish american wars, to WW1, the 1920s, the depression, WW2, 50s, Vietnam and the cold war, 80s, and the gulf war. And all without the ultra-nationalist Go-america attitudes either, it was more neutral than you claim it was. That was my experience, and its pretty dam recent too.

While I do agree that Platapus' post was oversimplified and not entirely accurate, I will say as a matter of fact that most survey courses in US history do end along the lines of "and we won the Second World War and everyone rode off into the sunset and lived happily ever after."

[Madox58]

I agree with ^

[GoldenRivet]

None of us learns any of the bad stuff in school

Yet I wrote a paper and did a presentation about the Bataan death march in 5th grade.

Important lessons for mankind to learn

[Kptlt. Neuerburg]

I remember when my history class got to WW2 in aroun Jr High/Middle school, and I really didn't learn anything that I didn't already know since I started reading about WW2 way back in the 5th or 6th grade mainly cause I got fed up with "America this, America that, America does everything."

Also Platapus makes a good point, here in the good 'ol US of A we're taught that we won every war we've ever fought without any help from anyone, however not everyone is taught that way it greatly depends on the teacher and the history books that are supplied to the schools too.

[the_tyrant]

Just some observations about historical education:

In Canada, I had to take 1 course in 4 years of high school. The course was VERY shallow, just some introductory history, basic concepts, etc. The course itself was a very basic course, mainly focused on names, dates, and locations. The tests and stuff kind of felt like Mad Libs

ex: [person] killed [person] in a bunker in Berlin in [year], his replacement [person] negotiated peace with the allied forces.

In China, most high school students don't learn history, but in middle school, history comprised of two courses, history class, and political science class. In history class, we were stuck with mad libs style tests and basic names, dates, and locations cramming style teaching. Than, we had political science, a course filled with time spent teaching and hand held analysis of political and historical issues. It is really biased, and the "analysis" was never more than just "memorize what this famous politician had to say about communism!"


Yeah, history education for most students is really lacking. I mean, the issue comes down to, most students don't enjoy history, or feel that they need to learn it. History is often looked down as "do this course if you want to be stuck studying liberal arts in university" (especially in china, where people believe that the only 3 courses worth doing is Math, Physics, and Chemistry).



I learned more about history arguing with people on the internet than I ever did in a class:subsim:

[Takeda Shingen]

The thing is that students in America know substantially more about The Civil War and The Second World War than they do regarding just about anything else in American or world history. On the whole, they also know a lot more about the wars in general than they do about other events. Some of that is to be expected, as it is easier to sell students on the sexy and exciting Second World War than it is the relatively mundane Louisiana Purchase. Countless times I have heard students in passing say "I can't wait until we get to the Civil War", or "I can't wait until we get to World War II", etc. I never hear "man, I can't wait until we get to the Homestead Act."

[Sailor Steve]

@ CaptainMattJ: You went to school in California. I suspect that Platapus may have gone to school somewhere in the deep south. My late friend Rocky spent a year in high school somewhere in that region, and he told me that it took two weeks to get to the Civil War and two weeks to get to the present. The rest was spent you-know-where.

He also said that his history teacher once said "I know that some of you think I believe that Robert E. Lee was the greatest man ever to walk the face of this earth. That is not so. I am fully aware that our Lord Jesus Christ also walked the face of this earth!"

Yet I wrote a paper and did a presentation about the Bataan death march in 5th grade.

Important lessons for mankind to learn
When I said "bad stuff" I was referring to our own atrocities, not ones done to us.

[Madox58]

I live just inside the last Indian reservation (for lack of the proper term) that Ohio had.
I can walk to the boundry line out my back door.
Col. Crawford was burned at the stake just a few miles away.
One of the first State Roads running North/South is just out the front door.

Aside from the stake burning?
I didn't learn any of that at school. And We live here!

Johnny Appleseed and all that.

[Tribesman]

When I said "bad stuff" I was referring to our own atrocities, not ones done to us.
Maybe he put some blame on Roosevelt, MacArthur and the local government:03:

[Jimbuna]

I've no complaints regarding history teaching during my schooling, we covered most things but admittedly not in any great depth.

As a child I learned a lot from books and yes, tv films.

[Sailor Steve]

tv films.
The Bad: Some people just accept what they see as history.

The Good: I owe most of my love of history to teleplays. Six Wives Of Henry VIII got me to start reading about the Tudor era. I, Claudius got me interested in Ancient Rome. It was fun reading up on the subjects and finding out just how much they got right and wrong.

I just finished watching Rome for the first time and rewatching I, Claudius for the seventh or eighth tme, and I found myself researching each character after the show was over. It's amazing how much you can learn online.

[Catfish]

I know this thread is about japaneses history concotion, or leaving out certain subjects, but reagarding the teaching of civil war history lessons .. :O:

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y174/penaeus/americaneverforgets.png

[Hottentot]

It's probably not surprising that a bunch of possible future history teachers like me and my buddies at uni spend a good while every now and then discussing these themes. Last we did it was just today. So I guess I'd have a lot to say on this subject, but don't really know where to start and what would be the most relevant for the topic.

Though I do say that a lot of problems could be solved by taking the emphasis from teaching history to teaching the students to read history. For instance, I can count with only one hand's fingers the graduated adults who have in discussion consciously made a distinction between the history and the past. They do not seem to understand what is a source and what is an interpretation of source. They do not express critical thinking.

And it's hard to blame them when the history classes still are in reality a series of events that one should learn to graduate. Understanding is secondary. Questioning does not exist.

This was hilariously evident when we, with a colleague, did a practical experiment with high school students. The subject of the class was capitalism and socialism in the 19th century. We didn't tell them in advance that we would be teaching it together. Instead we started with her telling in a rather subjective way of what capitalism was and me interrupting her with comments on things she intentionally missed. Then we switched roles on fly and I started glorifying the socialism whereas she brought up points against it. We pretended to be bitterly arguing, when in fact both of us were just doing our best not to start laughing.

The students were visibly distressed. When I had interrupted her for a few times, a few of them even told me to "shut up and let her teach": they were not used to the idea of someone questioning what was being taught to them, even when it was on purpose done with exaggerated subjectivity. And these are not kids we are talking about here but high school students who will be taking their matriculation exam in a few years.

Personally I have no complaints about what is taught in Finnish history classes. But I have a huge chip on my shoulder about how it's being taught.

[em2nought]

Personally, I think we(USA) don't glorify what we once were enough. Maybe it's so that people will more readily accept what we have now become. :hmm2:

The founding fathers were frackin' Jedi! :woot:

Jar-Jar Binks is in charge now, that goes for both sides of the isle.

[Sailor Steve]

Personally, I think we(USA) don't glorify what we once were enough.
We never were what we once were. Yes, the Founders had the advantage of an Enlightenment education, studying the likes of Newton and Locke, and they had an opportunity no one else had before, to create a new government using what they had learned. They came up with a system that still manages to work today despite two hundred years of people consistently trying to get around it, if not actually tear it down.

And when it came to running that government, they weren't any better at it than our leaders today are. They squabbled, they fought, they backstabbed and they compromised. They said they wanted a partyless system, and then they created parties. Mention any great Founding Father and if you don't already know I can show you stories that will make your hair stand on end.

They were every bit as human as we are.

[keysersoze]

We never were what we once were. Yes, the Founders had the advantage of an Enlightenment education, studying the likes of Newton and Locke, and they had an opportunity no one else had before, to create a new government using what they had learned. They came up with a system that still manages to work today despite two hundred years of people consistently trying to get around it, if not actually tear it down.

And when it came to running that government, they weren't any better at it than our leaders today are. They squabbled, they fought, they backstabbed and they compromised. They said they wanted a partyless system, and then they created parties. Mention any great Founding Father and if you don't already know I can show you stories that will make your hair stand on end.

They were every bit as human as we are.

Absolutely. If we're being generous, the "idyllic" period of American political history lasts maybe for the first six months of Washington's first term. And that's to ignore all the intrigue and political infighting that lead up to the creation of the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. By the second year of Washington's presidency, we were already violently suppressing a full-blown tax rebellion, while American politics was bitterly divided over questions about government centralization and our foreign relationships, especially with France. The backstabbing and political pettiness of early Americans was every bit then as widespread as it is today.

No, I think the problem is we are far too willing glorify the Founding Fathers and create grandiose mythologies about our country's beginnings.

[Hottentot]

No, I think the problem is we are far too willing glorify the Founding Fathers and create grandiose mythologies about our country's beginnings.

In short doing what popular history has always been about. It's no wonder that when you have to teach a huge amount of people certain things to create the master story and common reality where they can live in, you must simplify things. Pretty much everyone is doing that.

Of course whether it's ideal or not is a completely different question. But to play devil's advocate, do ask yourself: how would you do it effectively while still considering as many perspectives as possible?

[keysersoze]

In short doing what popular history has always been about. It's no wonder that when you have to teach a huge amount of people certain things to create the master story and common reality where they can live in, you must simplify things. Pretty much everyone is doing that.

Of course whether it's ideal or not is a completely different question. But to play devil's advocate, do ask yourself: how would you do it effectively while still considering as many perspectives as possible?

That's a fair question. In response, I would echo two points that you've already made: emphasizing the importance of critical thinking skills and underscoring the essential difference between history and historiography. A third interrelated point, and one that is admittedly difficult to achieve, is to restore a sense of uncertainty and contingency to history courses. When I taught history as a long-term substitute teacher, the greatest challenge was to prepare lessons that avoided presenting the past as an inevitable progression toward a predetermined, triumphant endpoint. My goal was always to teach history as a kind of Hegelian dialectic, but without Hegel's teleology.

Now, of course, this is always easier said than done. But when it can be managed, students often respond enthusiastically, better internalizing historical minutiae while also coming to understand the importance of reading history with a critical eye. Your story of teaching economic theory by holding a debate between a "socialist" and a "capitalist" is exactly the sort of thing I have in mind.

[Hottentot]

When I taught history as a long-term substitute teacher, the greatest challenge was to prepare lessons that avoided presenting the past as an inevitable progression toward a predetermined, triumphant endpoint.

Aye, that's another very important point which I failed to mention earlier. But now that you brought it up, it also leads us to another problem relating to the students. Seeing that an average person (at least in here) is between 11 - 18 years old when he or she studies history, it sets some limitations for this goal.

I don't want to underestimate young people, but when they have gazillions of other school subjects to study every day in addition to history, it puts a strain on them, even more so than on adults. I can imagine (and remember from my own days at school) how enticing it becomes for them too to just think of history as a linear progression. And it doesn't help that historiography itself aims to answer questions relevant to its own era, thus writing certain kind of history for each generation.

It's also problematic to "erase" the knowledge they already have in order to understand why something happened in the past. "Why did a caveman go fishing on a lake where there was no fish" is a dumb question unless they first realize that the caveman did not know there was no fish in there. Likewise "Why did Gavrilo Princip shoot Franz Ferdinand when it led to the First World War" is a silly question. But since we already know what happened and see history as a linear progression, these questions happen.

I could probably also rant about questions like "why did the First World War start" in the first place: yeah, and right after answering that we are going to solve the starvation problems in the world and cure AIDS. :-?

[Rilder]

I also heard that the dogs did not know what tank to attack of course so they where just as likely to run under a Soviet tank as a German tank.


I've read that it wasn't so much they didn't know what tanks to go under, but that they were trained with Russian tanks which ran on diesel rather then German tanks which ran on Gasoline, so following their training they went after the Russian tanks.

[keysersoze]

Aye, that's another very important point which I failed to mention earlier. But now that you brought it up, it also leads us to another problem relating to the students. Seeing that an average person (at least in here) is between 11 - 18 years old when he or she studies history, it sets some limitations for this goal.

I don't want to underestimate young people, but when they have gazillions of other school subjects to study every day in addition to history, it puts a strain on them, even more so than on adults. I can imagine (and remember from my own days at school) how enticing it becomes for them too to just think of history as a linear progression. And it doesn't help that historiography itself aims to answer questions relevant to its own era, thus writing certain kind of history for each generation.

It's also problematic to "erase" the knowledge they already have in order to understand why something happened in the past. "Why did a caveman go fishing on a lake where there was no fish" is a dumb question unless they first realize that the caveman did not know there was no fish in there. Likewise "Why did Gavrilo Princip shoot Franz Ferdinand when it led to the First World War" is a silly question. But since we already know what happened and see history as a linear progression, these questions happen.

I could probably also rant about questions like "why did the First World War start" in the first place: yeah, and right after answering that we are going to solve the starvation problems in the world and cure AIDS. :-?

Good points all. The issues you raised indicate just how difficult it can be to teach history in a way that is simultaneously non-linear, inclusive to different historiographical traditions, and, above all, interesting. The best history teachers I've ever had were great because they were storytellers. Their "lectures" were essentially passionately-told stories, and their enthusiasm and ability to transport an audience into someone else's circumstance restored uncertainty/contingency to the past and made their classes a joy to attend.

Understanding, or at least attempting to understand, causation is another important issue that points to the need for more emphasis on critical thinking. At its heart, it's the causation vs. correlation epistemological problem raised by David Hume. I think you're right about the strains of a middle school and high school education, so I'm not saying it would be realistic for every teacher to assign An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding. But, in a simpler sense, I think it's important to "teach the controversy" when dealing with issues like causation. That is, to dive into interpretational problems rather than pretending they don't exist in hopes of creating a more comfortable and more comprehensible narrative. This approach—"erasing" knowledge, as you rightly put it—can certainly create confusion: I remember a student once asking me "Why won't you just tell us what happened?" At the same time, training students to think critically about the past at least equips them with the tools for continued learning. They might not remember the niceties of Bismarck's role in German unification, but they will at least have the skills to read and learn with a healthy dose of historical skepticism in the future.

[Hottentot]

The best history teachers I've ever had were great because they were storytellers. Their "lectures" were essentially passionately-told stories, and their enthusiasm and ability to transport an audience into someone else's circumstance restored uncertainty/contingency to the past and made their classes a joy to attend.

I personally have loved teaching the junior high school students the most precisely because I try to be a teacher like that. They are still "child" enough to get into the story and work things out with their imagination. And they still know how to play. I know that when I'm planning classes for them, I can make exercises where we act, move around and somehow make abstract phenomena of history like the inflation more concrete by first demonstrating what it means in practise and everyday life and then seeing what kind of impact it had on the subject we are studying.

I can do this because I know they will play along. I can do this because I can hear them laughing when the exercise is going on. They still know how to learn and have fun at the same time. High school is different. Perhaps not worse, but certainly different.



But, in a simpler sense, I think it's important to "teach the controversy" when dealing with issues like causation. That is, to dive into interpretational problems rather than pretending they don't exist in hopes of creating a more comfortable and more comprehensible narrative.Precisely, and I'm fairly sure that if we asked this from the other teachers, most would agree. But we again meet the problem of what we want and what the society wants. We who study history in university can dedicate years for doing only that. The students who do it at school dedicate less years for doing that and lots of other things at the same time. The society doesn't want historians: it wants people who have a common idea of where we come from, who we are and what's important in our past. In short, the common reality for its citizens to live in.


At the same time, training students to think critically about the past at least equips them with the tools for continued learning. They might not remember the niceties of Bismarck's role in German unification, but they will at least have the skills to read and learn with a healthy dose of historical skepticism in the future.Aye, this is definitely something worth hoping for. This somehow reminds me of the saying: "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, but teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."