As for the Sino-Japanese war, they depicted the Japanese was forced to pick up the gauntlet, and Chinese people should take all the responsibility for the offence. The Japanese militarists killed over 20 millions Chinese people, especially in Nanjing Massacre, but they didn't mention the Massacre at all.

The 1937 Nanjing Massacre in China, all the textbooks gave no specific numbers, saying only that ''many'' were killed. In” Japanese Society for History Textbook Reform" (扶桑社), they said in the textbook that "The Japanese military believed that if they took the KMT capital Nanjing, then Chiang Kai-shek would surrender. In December, the Japanese military. (Note) At the time, many Chinese soldiers and civilians died from the Japanese attack (the Nanjing incident). In addition, there are various opinions about the number of victims in this incident, and this is still being debated."

And, the "comfort women". Were all of them forced into sex slavery? Well, apparently, some "comfort women" actually "voluntarily" went into service because they could earn a better living than being cruelly killed. The Japanese military's paper trail does not identify who is who, they just put all of them "voluntarily".

Of course they're going to make their text books have a biased view. They don't want to make their country look bad. America too. In 7th grade, we learned about manifest destiny, and the text book talked about it like it was no big deal how we killed and took over the Native American people's land.

I think British schools tend to be more balanced in their view of history, you won't find justifications or dumbing down of the Boer War concentration camps, for example, and the firebombing of Dresden is given due attention.

Why do you select these two events in British history (the Boer War and Dresden) and then interpret them in the most damaging way ? Do you have an automatic pilot to guide you through all the complexities of any historical situation ?

What I'm commenting on here is your glib use of "dumbing down" and "due attention" - as though it's unthinkable that any other rational perception of these events could differ from your assumptions.

Originally Posted by Jo Bennett

I think British schools tend to be more balanced in their view of history, you won't find justifications or dumbing down of the Boer War concentration camps, for example, and the firebombing of Dresden is given due attention.

Do they mention Cromwell's behaviour in Ireland? Namely the forced relocation of the native Irish population and general terrorising of the counrtyside. (Some would use the term ethnic cleansing).

As far as I can tell Cromwell is the big hero in Britain but in Ireland he's a hitler.

Originally Posted by wilted_laughter

Do they mention Cromwell's behaviour in Ireland? Namely the forced relocation of the native Irish population and general terrorising of the counrtyside. (Some would use the term ethnic cleansing).

As far as I can tell Cromwell is the big hero in Britain but in Ireland he's a hitler.

It's probable that in a modern textbook which examined the matter, Cromwell's military campaign in Ireland would be condemned. Having read a little Irish history, I would endorse your interpretation with enthusiasm.

What bothers me is the parroting of conclusions (about historical events etc.) before a case has been made.

(Why is this discussion taking place in a thread located in Social Security ?)

http://www.filibustercartoons.com/ar...hp?id=20050418

You see this sort of propaganda everywhere and it will likely always happen. Convincing children that the great slaugthers of the past are actually heroic victorys over viscious and deadly women and children.

No one likes to own up to their mistakes.

Originally Posted by wilted_laughter

Do they mention Cromwell's behaviour in Ireland? Namely the forced relocation of the native Irish population and general terrorising of the counrtyside. (Some would use the term ethnic cleansing).

As far as I can tell Cromwell is the big hero in Britain but in Ireland he's a hitler.

I got taught that he was fairly 'evil'...

-Wez

Originally Posted by wilted_laughter

Do they mention Cromwell's behaviour in Ireland? Namely the forced relocation of the native Irish population and general terrorising of the counrtyside. (Some would use the term ethnic cleansing).

As far as I can tell Cromwell is the big hero in Britain but in Ireland he's a hitler.

Cromwell was hated even in his own time. In 1661 his remains were dug up, taken to the Tyburn Tree and hanged posthumously. His decaying head was placed on a pike above Traitor's Gate and his body dumped in an unmarked, unconsecrated grave.

What you have to remember is that he killed the English king. That wasn't a vastly popular move. The Civil War was about gaining democratic power for parliament (broadly speaking). The average Jethro didn't want the king dead - he ruled by divine right!

Originally Posted by wilted_laughter

Do they mention Cromwell's behaviour in Ireland? Namely the forced relocation of the native Irish population and general terrorising of the counrtyside. (Some would use the term ethnic cleansing).

As far as I can tell Cromwell is the big hero in Britain but in Ireland he's a hitler.

Big Hero???
A military dictator, witch burning puritan religous zealot, regicidal maniac, corrupt to the eyeballs politician...
What alternative dimension do you get the idea we consider him a hero from?
The Republican cause is eternally vilified with name of this wretch!

British Hero's:
Alfred the Great
Sir Walter Raliegh
Sir Francis Drake
Horatio Nelson
Duke Wellington
Col. Lawrence
Churchill (though I have reservations about him.)

There are few people in Britain's history who are indisputable heroes. Wellington was pretty unpleasant to his own troops, never mind the enemy, Churchill was a bit genocidal (gassing kurds anyone?), Drake was a privateer for most of his life, I could go on for a while.

Cromwell is mixed also, he tried to make the rule of law trump everything, he wanted to expand the base of decision making, he wanted the law to apply to everyone equally, and he refused the crown, though it was offered to him. The flip side is that he was a genocidal nutjob, and extremely intolerant. I just wish the levellers had won the argument after the 1649 revolution; how different history might have been.

Actually Wellington took great care of his troops. He didn't have many. He may have been a pretty tough disciplinarian but it worked. His troops trusted him above anyone else.

It is ever so easy to vilify historical characters based on current morality thinking.