Telling the history of your country about how you enslaved, murdered and tortured are considered "grievance narratives" by the current administration. Declaring scientists public enemy because they don't follow your politics.

▲

like_any_other a day ago | parent | next [-]

Do they also teach about Comanche slave raids and other intra-native wars, and the native American treatment of prisoners of war and slaves, putting European conquerors in context as just another warring 'tribe', just a more successful one? Or do they teach a one-sided morality play version of history?

▲

UncleMeat a day ago | parent [-]

What history course would you expect to see this in? Courses don't tend to contain "by-the-ways" for things outside of the course material. Should it be against the rules to have a course specifically on the african slave trade? If somebody is teaching a course on the italian renaissance, should they be obligated to mention that great art was made in china too?

College history courses aren't "one-sided morality plays."

▲

like_any_other a day ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

	▲	UncleMeat 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I am not sure what you want. The reason why there is more discussion of atrocities committed by europeans is because there is way more course material focused on europeans. There are more courses on the american and french revolutions than the haitian revolution. Even orientalism is a european frame, focusing on how europeans engaged with the near and far east. A course on orientalism is not a course on the middle east. It is a course on europeans. I do not observe classes on precolumbian american or the islamic golden age shying away from atrocities in their course material. Courses on specific topics rather than time period / region pairings don't tend to shy away from a global frame either. So you've got a few options. You could insist that when atrocities come up in courses that focus on europeans that the course contains a "but actually" where it discusses other atrocities to balance things out. This seems odd from a pedagogical standpoint. You could reduce the number of courses focusing on europeans and increase the number of courses focused elsewhere. But doing this is also considered "woke." You could deliberately avoid discussion of atrocities committed by europeans in "western civ" style courses. This also doesn't strike me as right. Could you share what specifically you'd expect to change about history curricula?

▲

vibeprofessor a day ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

	▲	mindslight a day ago \| parent [-]
		While this has some valid points, constructively addressing these issues is clearly not the political thrust of the destructionists who wish to simplistically downplay the history rather than framing it in a more productive manner. Also the condemnation of "treats political disagreement as moral evil" landed harder back before the other tribe decided to embrace the dynamic and fortify their political stances with blatant immoral evil.