US is the only country to have used a nuclear weapon against another.
Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk
Yes, and it’s only bad when we do it. A-ok for any outher country.
Eh, it’s probably (a little bit) bad when anyone does it. But there’s no sense in dwelling on it in the countries where we can’t change it; better to focus on our own country, where we can.
hello … in the end, none of the replies, so far, have answered the op’s query.
for that, i think, one would have to rely on someone who actually came from one of those magnets. someone who actually lived in the russian and/or chinese social structures and attended the academic institutions.
i, for one, am fascinated with other cultures … and hoped to gain more insight and relevant substance from the op’s question.
along with others here, i have also benefited from the history-channel … however, it’s a product of usa … and, therefore, american points of view. period.
perhaps someone will eventually come along.
One person who posted here said he learned about history on TV. I hope he checked on how much TV got right.
Maybe, school isn’t always the best, but a lot of that depends on the teacher and student.
When I was in school, I didn’t always listen like I should have and neither did some of the people making the stuff you see on TV. Everything is slanted by the feelings of the person who made it.
Yes, this seems to be a difficult thing to answer… I’m considering going to live in Russia for a couple months - and hoping that will help answer it for me.
A wild guess will say that the US doesn’t receive a huge amount of attention in Russian and Chinese curriculums - certainly much less than many Americans would expect.
I was educated in Ireland. We looked at the American revolution as (a) a curtain-raiser for the French Revolution, which was the real deal, and (b) an event which set the context for, and had some indirect influence on, political events in Ireland in the late eighteenth century (e.g. the Volunteer movement; the pressure for legislative independence).
American next turned up as one of the places where emigrants went in the famine and post-famine years. But we didn’t look at all at how they fared in America - once they got there, they basically dropped off the edge of the earth, as far as our curriculum was concerned. Then the US gets a brief nod as an ideological influence on, and a source of material support for, the Fenian movement.
After that, nothing until the US entry into the Great War - not in itself a very significant thing, but it leads on to a look at US influence on the Versailles settlement, the League of Nations, etc, which is more important. Plus, the US as a source of support for the Irish republican movement in 1919-22. But that’s little more than a footnote, really, to the study of Irish history during that period.
The Great Depression in the US, Roosevelt, the New Deal? Nada, nothing. When we looked at events outside Ireland in this period, we were looking at the Rise of Fascism.
When it comes to the Second World War, as others have said we didn’t look at the military history at all. On the political side, we paid much more attention to the war in Europe than to the War in the Pacific or in South-East Asia. We looked at the US in relation to its military role in post-war Europe and - a big one, this - Marshall Aid. And of course we looked at the Cold War.
And that’s about it, really. We never studied the US for its own sake. We never looked at the causes, course and consequences of the US Civil War, for example; it got mentioned only in the context of the Fenian rebellion of 1867, some of whose participants were men with military training and experience from that war.
OK, Ireland is not Russia or China, but I suspect that in those countries they study (a) Russian/Chinese history, and (b) world history from a Russian/Chinese perspective. The US is going to feature in the latter in so far as the US, or events in the US, are of interest or relevance to Russia/China.
Unless you’re high-school age, I can’t imagine that just living in Russia for a couple of months will give you any insight into how American history and culture are taught in Russian schools.
Eh, there are certainly untruths in there. One that’s commonly mentioned is the claim that the Puritans came to the New World to avoid religious persecution. They didn’t. “Persecution” of Puritans in England was largely a matter of ejecting Puritan clergy from the Church of England. They weren’t being tortured or anything, though I suspect a few suffered from the restoration of the monarchy after Cromwell.
The Puritans came to the Americas to practice their own form of religious persecution.
This is my experience too. British schooling - or at least English private schooling - has to cover way too much old stuff to have anything significant to say about modern history. We didn’t talk about the Americas at all until I was 13, and then it was about one day spent on the New Deal. We never covered the Revolution at all (or much about the Empire, for that matter). IIRC, the only post-1700 topic we covered in any significant detail was the Napoleonic era.
Pakistan in the 1990’s (and well Saudi Arabia, but Pakistani schools there, so no practical difference).
What we read about America was
i) The Revolution; probably one lesson and somehow subsumed in the whole French Revolution thing
ii) US Civil War, probably a couple of paragraphs.
iii) A bit about settlements in the US West, part of what we did on the Industrial Revolution
iv) US as part of the World Wars
v) Quite a bit on the cold war, the space race.
And your point being?