Options

History from a non Western perspective

kochspostulateskochspostulates Posts: 3,067
Forum Member
✭✭✭
What is non Western perspective history like?


What do they teach us?


I've just watched BBC series and Andrew Marr mentioned that this history was from a Western perspective. I am Macanese in origin and have heard about history from more than one side, although live here so am more inclined to side with the West.

Has anyone else been taught non Western history?
«1

Comments

  • Options
    exlordlucanexlordlucan Posts: 35,375
    Forum Member
    I haven't.
  • Options
    Green KnickersGreen Knickers Posts: 756
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I think Andrew Marr may mean that the historical perpective in the west glosses over the issues and savagery around imperialism.
  • Options
    kochspostulateskochspostulates Posts: 3,067
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I think Andrew Marr may mean that the historical perpective in the west glosses over the issues and savagery around imperialism.

    How would they teach world history in a non imperialist country like Switzerland?
  • Options
    SemieroticSemierotic Posts: 11,132
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I did history up to and including A-level. If I didn't know better I wouldn't have a clue about the British Empire, the current syllabus is very careful to never bring it up. Disgraceful.
  • Options
    killjoykilljoy Posts: 7,920
    Forum Member
    Wether it's from a western or non-western perspective most countries have aspects of their history which would be viewed as violent or oppressive by someone else.
  • Options
    Digital PieDigital Pie Posts: 281
    Forum Member
    Andrew Marr had his hands down his pa's skirt last month when he was pissed up in Soho so he can **** right off
  • Options
    Si_CreweSi_Crewe Posts: 40,202
    Forum Member
    Maybe not quite what you were thinking of but...

    Back in about 2003 I was working in Malaysia and one of the guys I was working with was telling me that in his son's school they were doing a project about whether or not the WTC attacks were some kind of inside job or false-flag operation.

    He reckoned (as did most of the guys I worked with) that it was a fairly common belief in Malaysia that this was the case and that schools were encouraging kids to consider it.
  • Options
    Lewis26Lewis26 Posts: 1,435
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Actually that series was very good and includes what we know about from china to europe to south america. They cant actually do a documentary series on the tribes of Papua new guinea if nothing is written down can they?
  • Options
    Lewis26Lewis26 Posts: 1,435
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Andrew Marr had his hands down his pa's skirt last month when he was pissed up in Soho so he can **** right off

    What does that have to do with anything :confused:
  • Options
    terry66532terry66532 Posts: 581
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Si_Crewe wrote: »
    Maybe not quite what you were thinking of but...

    Back in about 2003 I was working in Malaysia and one of the guys I was working with was telling me that in his son's school they were doing a project about whether or not the WTC attacks were some kind of inside job or false-flag operation.

    He reckoned (as did most of the guys I worked with) that it was a fairly common belief in Malaysia that this was the case and that schools were encouraging kids to consider it.

    as conspiracy theories go -- it is probably the most daft one out there -- suprisingly though -- its the most believed one too lol

    Diana on the other hand.....

    just kidding :D
  • Options
    Digital PieDigital Pie Posts: 281
    Forum Member
    Lewis26 wrote: »
    What does that have to do with anything :confused:

    west end perspective
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,284
    Forum Member
    Semierotic wrote: »
    I did history up to and including A-level. If I didn't know better I wouldn't have a clue about the British Empire, the current syllabus is very careful to never bring it up. Disgraceful.

    It really is. I remember the British empire being mentioned once or twice at secondary school, normally in a way that framed it as a neutral or positive. I remember having one RE lesson on the Amritsar massacre, but that was it. Move along, nothing to see here.

    The result? Comments like "I wish we still had an empire", or "Nobody living under British control ever got hurt", or even "India should be grateful- they'd be nothing without us". Most of the people who say these things aren't warmongerers, or racists, or nationalists- they're just incredibly naive about what the empire was. They've been brought up to be.

    Anyway... I remember being a kid and wondering why we always learnt the same history again and again (Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Henry VIII, Victorians, World Wars). There were huge parts of the world which never seemed to get mentioned. I remember wondering why we never got taught about African, Asian, Eastern European or South American history- those were big places, there must have been something going on there.

    It would be great to broaden the amount of history which gets taught in schools. Not only would learning about a lot of different places be more interesting for children, but I feel they would really benefit from knowing that important things happened in every country, not just their own.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 5,692
    Forum Member
    Semierotic wrote: »
    I did history up to and including A-level. If I didn't know better I wouldn't have a clue about the British Empire, the current syllabus is very careful to never bring it up. Disgraceful.

    When I did GCSE History (four years ago now) we did all about the Wall Street crash, Great Depression, WWI, WWII and apartheid in South Africa.

    I contemplated A-level History which was mostly about the 1917 revolutions in Russia, inter-war Britain (including the Irish independence in 1922) and some more stuff about America.

    Not a thing on the Empire though.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 9,720
    Forum Member
    Semierotic wrote: »
    I did history up to and including A-level. If I didn't know better I wouldn't have a clue about the British Empire, the current syllabus is very careful to never bring it up. Disgraceful.

    I went to several different schools so covered quite a broad range of topics in history. From memory:

    Aztecs
    Slave trade
    Industrial revolution
    Ancient Egypt
    Tudors
    WWII
    Apartheid
    Civil rights
    Suffragettes
    Magna Carta

    Don't recollect ever learning about the British Empire, but I'm pretty sure the subject is taught comprehensively in the former colonies, where it actually matters.
  • Options
    kochspostulateskochspostulates Posts: 3,067
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Turquoise wrote: »
    .


    Anyway... I remember being a kid and wondering why we always learnt the same history again and again (Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Henry VIII, Victorians, World Wars). There were huge parts of the world which never seemed to get mentioned. I remember wondering why we never got taught about African, Asian, Eastern European or South American history- those were big places, there must have been something going on there.

    It would be great to broaden the amount of history which gets taught in schools. Not only would learning about a lot of different places be more interesting for children, but I feel they would really benefit from knowing that important things happened in every country, not just their own.

    I never learned about those places either at school and only learned about Middle Eastern History and South Asian history because I did RE at school where we learned about all the major religions in the world. I don't know much about South American history at all.
  • Options
    phylo_roadkingphylo_roadking Posts: 21,339
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    They cant actually do a documentary series on the tribes of Papua new guinea if nothing is written down can they?

    Actually - it's very possible for primitive tribes and societies to pass only many thousands of years of oral history and tradition between generations; look at Australian aboriginals, for instance...and a lot of this is being recorded and studied now.
  • Options
    Speak-SoftlySpeak-Softly Posts: 24,737
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    GeoBa92 wrote: »
    When I did GCSE History (four years ago now) we did all about the Wall Street crash, Great Depression, WWI, WWII and apartheid in South Africa.

    I contemplated A-level History which was mostly about the 1917 revolutions in Russia, inter-war Britain (including the Irish independence in 1922) and some more stuff about America.

    Not a thing on the Empire though.

    Both my daughters were offered the same syllabus as this.

    The idea so depressed them they moved schools for A level and did classical studies instead. And that school also offered "early english/modern" (not sure of the title) history which covered the Tudors/Civil war ect.

    I don't know why so few schools offer an alternative syllabus when a lot of children though interested in history, are sick to the back teeth of studying the 20C.
  • Options
    phylo_roadkingphylo_roadking Posts: 21,339
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I don't know why so few schools offer an alternative syllabus when a lot of children though interested in history, are sick to the back teeth of studying the 20C.

    Same as anything.....MONEY!

    Textbooks, particularly history ones, are frighteningly expensive; when i was at school, one of the alternatives on the syllabus for us was Marlborough and 18th century England...but even THEN, in the late '70s/early '80s, the main textbook was £25!!! Imagine enough of those for a couple of classes...
  • Options
    LyricalisLyricalis Posts: 57,958
    Forum Member
    Why do people keep going on about school? There are plenty of books, documentaries and internet sources if you want to learn about something. History at school, well this is how my teacher explained it when I was doing O level anyway, is about giving you the tools you need to judge the evidence, sources and accounts for yourself by concentrating on a few selected periods. It is not there to teach you the entire history of the human race.

    Anyone who thinks their education should stop with what they studied in school wasn't really learning the real lesson.
  • Options
    phylo_roadkingphylo_roadking Posts: 21,339
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Why do people keep going on about school?

    Because if whatever interest there is in history isn't cultivated properly, early enough....it flounders early :( I've seen it SO many times. And it's REALLY easy for an uninteresting or uninterested teacher - and syllabus - to spoil it in a kid.
    Anyone who thinks their education should stop with what they studied in school wasn't really learning the real lesson.

    It's also hard enough to keep kids interested in the process of learning...there's just SO many other fun things to grab their attention :D

    Somehow *I* survived it to keep on being interested in history...and yet really really disliked school and the process of learning.
  • Options
    LyricalisLyricalis Posts: 57,958
    Forum Member
    Same as anything.....MONEY!

    Textbooks, particularly history ones, are frighteningly expensive; when i was at school, one of the alternatives on the syllabus for us was Marlborough and 18th century England...but even THEN, in the late '70s/early '80s, the main textbook was £25!!! Imagine enough of those for a couple of classes...

    Which is why there is a move in the US, against massive pressure from the textbook cartel, towards open source textbooks. This is an area that is in desperate need of massive disruption.
  • Options
    phylo_roadkingphylo_roadking Posts: 21,339
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Yes, but U.S. teaching methods have always managed to maintain kids' interest in history better/longer than the UK; maybe it's because they...ahem...have so little of it that they set to to "do" it better???
  • Options
    OvalteenieOvalteenie Posts: 24,169
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    There's very little interest here in the politics of the non-Western world.

    There's been little coverage of this week's Chinese leadership transition, compared to the blanket coverage of the US presidential election. My thread was a nil pointer :o :cool:
  • Options
    swingalegswingaleg Posts: 103,116
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    Some non-European history is very popular, eg ancient Egypt, Mayans, Incas

    They all left writing or heiroglyphs

    I think that's important because there's almost no history of the north american indians.............maybe they didn't leave much in the way of written materials

    what 'history' there is tends to be archeology rather than history
  • Options
    swingalegswingaleg Posts: 103,116
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    Ovalteenie wrote: »
    There's very little interest here in the politics of the non-Western world.

    There's been little coverage of this week's Chinese leadership transition, compared to the blanket coverage of the US presidential election. My thread was a nil pointer :o :cool:

    yeah..............I did read your thread but was surprised there was no red hot debate about who was going to win..........

    you know, the forum divided and all that..............;)
Sign In or Register to comment.