It may be biased, but the alternative, having no formal history lessons, is far worse. At the very least it provides a shared cultural identity, and presents lessons learned from the past.

Hopefully moving forward we won't have to worry so much about the revisionism. With everything being documented the internet, we most likely will just have to content with sifting through it all to find the truth.

>> It may be biased, but the alternative, having no formal history lessons, is far worse.

110%. In America, I would say we ought to be teaching history as fast as possible: We are a Republic of immigrants, fighting for the preservation of an idea - The Constitution of the United States of America. By the way, that constitution happens to make us all equal by default. That's a pretty important lesson for us here to remember in these divisive political times.

> the alternative, having no formal history lessons, is far worse

It depends. If the history lessons are strongly indoctrinating, then it's better not to have them. How many of the very good principles of Communism are being dismissed because people have been taught that communism == the Russian implementation of it?

Just a thought: growing up I had moved around the country a bit, and perhaps this led me to be introduced to wildly different ideas about history. For example, I was taught both the States Rights and the Slavery motives of the civil war, in both primary school and in Uni! Another: My history texts taught me to be once quite strongly of the belief that the atomic bombings of Japan were necessary, and even saved lives, until a nice old prof in uni showed me that Eisenhower and many military leaders either strongly condemned it, pointing that the Japanese were already negotiating surrender, or said it be at least not dropped on urban population centres, as there was already a complete naval blockade and they had no ability to continue the war.

> My history texts taught me to be once quite strongly of the belief that the atomic bombings of Japan were necessary, and even saved lives

So that's where that attitude / excuse comes from whenever I talk to americans about the bombings of Japan?! Is that literally taught in history classes? It always seemed to me like a statement made by an indoctrinated mind. It was nuclear bombs used on civilians in two densely populated cities. How can people spin that into something good?

The typical narrative is that millions of American and Japanese lives would have been lost fighting for the home islands. The Japanese were pretty intent on dying for the cause if their leadership chose to do so.

The bit left out in most history books is the fact that the atomic bomb was used not to destroy Japanese cities but instead to demonstrate to the Soviets, who by an earlier treaty, had declared war on Japan and were invading from the North, that the US could oppose them in both Japan and Europe.

The US didn't really need to use atomic weapons for any tactical reason. Fire bombing had already proven that a city could be wiped out with traditional ordinance.

This is true. What's more is that Hirohito, when asked about terms of surrender, said that he would

That said, "there was no reason to use that awful thing" as Eisenhower said. Truman was "itching to use the bomb" to deter the Soviets in Europe and Asia.

There wasn't any reason for a land invasion and military leaders in the US echoed this, and they were already defeated and going through conditions of surrender. Hirohito was a really bad guy, and stubbornly refused any terms that would have him step down. Miscommunication then led to the bomb drop, which few know. If you want to know more about this Google the 'Mokusatsu incident.'

Then in a massive miscarriage lf justice, Hirohito remained royalty and Tojo was martyred as "the bad guy."

I strongly disagree: It is not nearly true that all knowledge, including all history, is ideological and false.

All knowledge is biased to some degree, just like all people are dishonest to some degree - but to say you cannot trust anyone at all or that everyone is equally trustworthy would plainly be a misapprehension of reality.

A good education teaches people to treat knowledge skeptically and develop judgment about it, but to dismiss it all is as ignorant as believing it all. As someone once said about IT security, 'there is no wisdom in trusting no one'.

I'll add the controversial (on HN) statement that such skill is what a liberal arts education teaches, and I believe it is the most valuable skill to learn.

Absolutely. It should be taught because knowing history informs our present and future decisions. At the same time, we should educate young people on the realities of one-sided history and the constantly evolving landscape of history. Teach kids to seek more multiple sources and interpretations.

That's the kind of idea I was trying to raise in comments. Criticizing the state of education doesn't mean wishing for no education.

Maybe we should have our worst historical enemies write our history textbooks for us.

That's a very adversarial view of the world.

Maybe we could:

- teach our more kids and adults to be healthier - teach them to be more than physically fit (as in master of slow and/or fast sport) - teach them to be wise about society, groups and empathy - teach them to be stronger emotionally

It's probably possible to have a culture that is strong yet friendly to foreigners, traits that reinforce themselves because you don't fear.