in the usa? Yes. In the uk. No.
Iv seen us textbooks, they idolise abraham lincoln and maintain vietnam wasnt a defeat

Until you get into higher level history courses where you have to do your own research, yes, for the most part you are taught propaganda. That is true for all nations (sorry thenumberone)... history is written by the victors after all, and one big thing the victors do is justify their actions.

No history book I have ever seen, however, says that Vietnam wasn't a defeat. They argue over why it was a defeat, which can be misconstrued but even the people that say "it was at a stalemate and we would have won had we stayed" admit that it was a defeat... they just say we lost because we left.

The reason that such things happen, especially when it's grade school history, is because there is this idea that you have to build up a sense of civic pride. If you talk about the bad things you're country has done, well, that might make the students not proud to be American, or British, or Egyptian, or or Canadian, or French, or Chinese, etc etc etc. You play up the good things that have happened, to the point of overemphasis. Yes, Abraham Lincoln was a good man, and yes he signed the Emancipation Proclamation... but it only effected the slaves in the rebel states, not the slave states that had remained in the Union (Maryland, Delaware, and Kentucky... and nominally Missouri). It took the 13th Amendment to free them all. That isn't something most people learn until college level courses on the Civil War itself.

You want to see propaganda... I am curious to see how history books in Britain (specifically England) and France cover the 100 years war. Or what the official texts say about relations with Scotland compared to Scottish historical records. Or relations with the Irish. And can you imagine what problems German schools have when it is time to talk about the two World Wars and the nightmare it must be to balance civic pride with not condoning those events (granted, WWI was not nearly as bad as WWII... and they can blame a lot of stuff on one man, but still)?

Edit: Why is it that when I hit "post" it put the word "UNION" in all capital letters?
Edit 2: OMG, it just did it again! --------------------------^^^^^^^------ See?!

Elara :
Obviously all history is liable to have been altered in some aspects, but ui have seen the us courses and the UK courses. The amount of stuff i learned about stupidity of the uk government, colonial era, etc etc.
For instance, Churchill was a racist moron.
I prefer being given it straight. Being taught about the 1st world war my teacher highlighted the irony of us protecting little Belgium when we had conquered little Ireland.
"Those who forget the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them."

As far as civic pride goes, we are individuals. the accomplishments of certain historic figures does not make you more important. The only thing i think is justifiable pride is things like scale, if you are producing more scientists, take pride in your education system, if you're earning a better base wage, take pride in your standard of living. Quality of establishment is really all that matters. When people start waving flags thats when people die. The men in power want nationalism.Its a perfect tool of control. Nations should be formed on common ideology's, not race religion or conquests.

Although iv gone on a tangent there.

Actually, i think Abraham Lincoln was a very bad man. He only supported emancipation to preserve the UNION, in effect, he just wanted more land than less.

Excuse my rather large copy paste here, it will probably be tiny compared to the rest i intend to write anyway =p

"I would save the UNION. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the UNION will be "the UNION as it was." If there be those who would not save the UNION, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the UNION unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the UNION, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the UNION without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the UNION; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the UNION. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views."

He is pretty explicit, he gave not a jot about Africans, and yet he has a memorial, blacks pay tribute to him, he is a hero in america.

In fact, not only did he not care about blacks, he didn't want them in his country.He planned to deport them all from america back to Africa, the Caribbean and south america. He thought they shouldn't be in a white society.
The man was a racist.

I haven't read English text books, Scotland kept its own establishments after the act of UNION so we have a different schooling system, iv never been taught about the hundred years war but as far as im concerned both sides were as bad as the other.

As for relations with Scotland, i got a good does of that. Wallace was an a hole who sold out Robert the Bruce, not the hero people like to think, and Scotland were constantly invading England too.
In fact the word blackmail comes from the fact that Scottish border demanded 'protection' money from most of north England in exchange for not invading them. They were quite fond of nicking there black cattle too. And tax was referred to as white mail, so they called it black mail to make it sound more evil.

For relations with the Irish as far as im aware they were fairly good for a while, Bruce's brother was even offered the throne if he removed the English. It went down hill when Scots were given permission to settle the north though (ulster).

Germany take a pretty hard stance on that, they do teach it but if you dress as Hitler or salute they arrest you, they have a very low tolerance for that now. Its almost amusing when i see foreign people (from a German perspective) like Americans idolizing him, he hated non Germans, not non whites.

...
UNION

Oldschool41 :
They don't really teach the war of independence here, in terms of colonies the usa was never the most economic, many historians of the time were urging the government to grant them independence because in terms of supply and protection they were a major liability.
They were of course labeled traitors.
Although in studying the war of independence you can equally find that much of the support for it and the new policy's on independence stemmed from very colonial attitudes from the us themselves. There was no such thing as a good country back then.
I was going to point out the irony of Greece apparently being the 1st democracy but hey, you beat me to it.
Iv been to Germany and met the Germans, i almost pity them because they go overboard in declaring there love of democracy and hatred of Hitler. I think people need to drop this idea about Germans that apparently a great many people still harbour. The culprits (for the most part) are long since dead. I don't hate the English or Italians for invading Scotland. They are both great country's and for the most part nice people.
Tomorrow matters more than yesterday, but if you carry the lessons you learned yesterday forward then tomorrow will be a better place.

Edit: wow it does block UNION UNION uni0n

thenumberone : Well said my good sir. I'm not surprised by the Churchill comment since Churchill wasn't that good of a PM that history likes to make him out to be. Your comment on your 1st World War Teacher comments on Beligium and Ireland is quite ironic and you still see it today with UK refusing to give up Northern Ireland to unite the whole island.

Abraham Lincoln is viewed like a king here in America, but when you dig down into what he did, hes not quite that nice (for instance he was considering signing the Wilmont Admendment which would have made slavery legal in the United States, but the Confederates didn't think that it was enough so they still left the UNION...wonder if that will be capitalized like Elara said.)

The Hitler part makes me wonder if the Germans are just going along with the rest of the world saying that Hitler was the Anti-Christ and all that other nasty stuff. When in fact one could argue that without Hitler assuming power we wouldn't have...

- Jet Planes
- Helicopters
- Modern Day Tank Tactics
- Nuclear Bombs
- Submarines
- Balistic Missles
- Assault Rifles
- AK-47
- Bazookas
- Autobaun Highways (in fact Ike's Highway plan was actually borrowed from Hitler since Ike saw how important a well funded highway system could help move people quickly, both military and non military.)
- Eisenhower's Presidency
- The Space Program
- Israel (No disrespect to my Jewish Vizzed members, but be honest if Hitler didn't commit the horror and disgusting torture events that was the Holocust, Israel wouldn't have been created.)

Now the stuff that I listed is subject to debate (particulary the Israel part), but if Hitler didn't use Germany's money to fund the war effort and warmachine, then some of those stuff would have never happened (Eisenhower's Presidency for example) or have taken additional years to create.

You're basically taught what people want you to know. Most schools (at least in the US) are public, which means the government funds them. If the government funds them, the government can influence the information they feed to the children. This allows them to glorify parts they want and glaze over the lesser moments of their history. I'm sure that decades from now, US schools aren't going to be teaching children about all the things Bush did to ruin the country. They'll probably spin him to be some hero who valiantly crusaded against terrorism... -.-

Oldschool41 :
Tbh, i dont support reunification of Ireland, 3 main points, which i will outline here.

1:The people living there have been there an insane amount of time, they have a legitimate right to live there
2:as a democracy the inhabitants have the right to chose
3:Both the UNIONists and republicans in Ireland cant stop killing each other over religion, its ridiculous and i genuinely grimace at the idea of what would happen if the two were united, id like to think it would be equal and peaceful, but i cant see it happening.

Its like the partition of India and Pakistan upon independence, Ghandi wanted one state, but millions died on the first days of independence and millions fled to the other nations before the religious majority executed them, and like wolfs they were pursued as they ran, both sides. religion can be as dangerous as nationalism.

I have no qualms about whether they're part of the UK or not, likewise if the north wanted reunification id think its a bad idea but there choice entirely.

Well they say war is the mother of inventions, but some of that would probably have come about anyway. Working radar was created by a Scottish scientist in the 2nd world war because we were keeping planes in the air as scouts wasting fuel, we needed early warning. But that undoubtedly would have come about eventually anyway.
*Looks at that list.
its ironic, most Americans don't realise that the space program and nukes came about from captured German techs, schematics and scientists. Really the Germans were the mothers of it.
Either way, i am anti nuke, so i wish we hadnt discovered it.

Actually, Israel started forming as early as 1880, and Britain rewarded them for there help militarily by allowing them to settle (which i really disagreed with). After the 2nd world war most nations supported it simply because they didn't want the Jews coming to there country (a nation founded on racism, superb)

darthyoda : Correction my good sir you had to be...

1. An Athenian (remember Greece didn't exist back in Ancient Times)
2. A Land Owner
3. Had Military Training
4. Male
5. Adult


So your close, just that only Adult Male Athenian Citizens who owned land and had Military training could vote. So a good chunk of Athenian society couldn't vote. Now add in the fact that Rich Males could afford good land and better military training so they could be more likely to be elected to surve in the Athenian Government. So while yes Athens was a Democracy, it was not a complete Deomcracy.

(It would be like how China is called "The People's Republic of China", but in reality nothing/little of Chinese Government is actually Republican/have Republican principles.)

Oldschool41 : I see someone else has researched ancient history. This pleases me greatly. Though, Darius was king of Persia at the time of the first Persian War and Xerxes during the second.

thenumberone : More power to British education then. I also think that students should be given the facts and to hell with this civic pride thing. You can emphasize the good things, but don't whitewash or ignore the bad.

The one thing I will point out in your opinion of Lincoln is that you are judging him by the standards of today's society... in which case, yes, he was racist. But you have to look at the society and culture of 19th century America to actually evaluate him fairly... he was an abolitionist, but he felt that it was not the President's role to make that kind of change. One of the big reasons that the American Civil War happened was because we elected an abolitionist and they were certain that the Republicans would work against the interest of the slave states (yeah, back in the day the Republicans were the liberals, wrap your mind around THAT one).

Many abolitionists actually supported repatriation as an option not because they didn't want African Americans to stay here, but because they felt it was the best option for them (sort of a "we stole them, we should take them back because it will be hard for them to be treated fairly here")... was it wrong, yes... but they had good intentions and it did result in Liberia being founded.

As for the comment about wanting the land... I think it was more that he didn't want to be the President that was in charge when the Union broke apart. In context, what Lincoln was saying was that he would have done whatever it took to preserve the country, no matter his own personal opinions. His priority as President was to preserve the Union, nothing else. Was he right? That can be debated without end... but I think that he did not make any decision out of malice or hatred.

And on a side note, I also think it is sad that most people don't know our space program is thanks to German (largely Jewish) scientists that we granted asylum to. I have met people that thought Einstein was American.

Elara : i feel that abraham was no different than any man at the time, he never wanted to end slavery.

Hehehe, people thought einstein was american? Jeezo.

The space program was kickstarted by 2 things.

1:the us managed to seize the german rockets/ prototypes and
2:somewhat controversially offered immunity to scientists that continued there work for the us.
As i said to oldschool, these things would inevitably come into being eventualy, but it likely would have been the soviets otherwise.

thenumberone : Seeing as you didn't grow up here, nor do you understand our culture, I'm curious to see the text books you have that refer to the Vietnam war as a victory for the U.S.

In one sense, the war was fought to stop the spread of communism from taking over the world in the domino effect.  To that end, communism didn't spread to India and the rest of the world?  Victory?  Technically.

In the other sense, no one says Americans won the war.  In high school, we learned we didn't win anything.  There was no total victory, nor marginal victory.

Do you have sources to quote?

warmaker : considering that i havent seen the books in about 5 years no.
I can have a look online later, maybe il find them.
I doubt communism would spread that far, most nations overthrew there communist governments when they got the chance, without foreign invasions.
Not to mention that every side in the vietnam war were war criminals. It was a very dirty war.

thenumberone :

I'm not entirely sure where you got all of your information on Lincoln from, but he most certainly was anti-slavery. He sought to end slavery by stopping its expansion and letting it die off on its own. To say that because he didn't plan to abolish slavery in all states as the president that he supported it or didn't want it to end seems to me to be incredibly shortsighted, and, as far as I can tell, not supported by any historical evidence whatsoever.

Abraham Lincoln, 1860

---

"We think slavery a great moral wrong, and while we do not claim the right to touch it where it exists, we wish to treat it as a wrong in the territories, where our votes will reach it."

Your claims that he didn't care about blacks at all and only opposed slavery to preserve the union seem to be entirely fabricated and without any shred of truth. While he certainly wasn't perfect, and it could be shown that he may have had racist views, the fact that he opposed slavery is apparent in almost everything that he said. Feel free to try to provide a source that shows otherwise, or feel free to read the things that he actually said. Yes, when he abolished slavery it was to preserve the union. But it's painfully obvious that that was not the first time he was against slavery.

soxfan849 :
As he stated himself, his only interest was preserving the union and after that removing blacks from the usa. If he didnt feel that way its strange thats what he said. Time has made him a hero.
Outside the usa its pretty common knowledge he wasnt a good man.
He played his cards in the manner he thought would win him the most.
Lets look here:
http://ourfoundingtruth.blogspot.co.uk/2009/02/abraham-lincoln-racist.html

thenumberone :

As I said, he only sought to abolish slavery himself to preserve the union. That doesn't mean he wasn't against slavery. And while he may have had a few racist views, anyone who can read can see that he was clearly anti-slavery long before he became president and long before the Civil War. You can deny facts all you want and demonize him because of his racist views, but the fact of the matter is that he was well ahead of his time and he helped bring about progress and managed to preserve the union at the same time.

Lincoln's interest as president was doing his job. And his job was to preserve the union and protect the rights of the citizens. At that time, slavery was a right and he had absolutely no authority to abolish it until the Civil War forced his hand. Even if that weren't the case, his efforts to prevent the expansion of slavery would have set the stages for it to slowly die out in time.

Again, demonize him all you want by quote mining him and taking him out of context. But you're ignoring mountains of historical evidence and direct quotes that completely disagree with you.

soxfan849 :
I dont see it as demonising at all, from his quotes he was completely two faced, he was a historic figure who oversaw a major change but if he was from here i wouldnt call him a hero. He did what he did to preserve the union. But people are just fed crap about how he was a great man who loved humanity and wanted equality for all yada yada. At the very least people should be shown both sides, and not get the cherry picked parts. Its not real or true if you select only certain parts, why learn whats wrong.
How am i taking the quotes out of context though? In what context could they look good?

Elara : Sorry I'm a little late to respond to your post. You are correct that Darius was the king of Persia when he order a failed invasion to burn Athens. Xerxes later on managed to burn Athens. But we tend to overlook the fact that despite both Darius and Xerxes wanted to burn Athens (which Western Civilization sees as being a "sin"), they were able rulers (I use the term able because we can debate if they were "good" rulers).

soxfan849
thenumberone

Wow you guys are really going at it on Lincoln. I have to disagree with you soxfan, Lincoln like you said was anti-slavery, but he would never had done what he did to outlaw slavery if...

1. The South had not left the Union.
2. The victory at Antietam had been a Union defeat, thus Lincoln would had never issued the Emancipation Proclamation.
3. Lincoln had lost his reelection bid.

So I believe that your arguement about how "the Civil War forced his hand" while valid, is not the sole reason for outlawing slavery.

What troubles me is that while Lincoln didn't want to punish the South as hard as the Radical Republicans did during Reconstruction. That being said, I think Lincoln not issuing harsh punishment to the South (remember he preferred a more "moderate" approch) was a cause for consern since if you say that slavery should be declared illegal, shouldn't the people who had owned slaves be punished?