So, I am the only one thinking things are going downhill in Europe?

@Fragony

How can you justify that Wilders wants a national bias in history? Isn't that a corruption of history? It isn't even history, it's indoctrination.

Spare me that, how can you consider the dutch educational system anything but.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

@Fragony

How can you justify that Wilders wants a national bias in history? Isn't that a corruption of history? It isn't even history, it's indoctrination.

---

Just out of curiosity - what do you mean by "national bias"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

Just out of curiosity - what do you mean by "national bias"?

---

'Historical canon', ironically only makes us look worse. The Dutch Indonesian war wasn't pretty, about time I hate having to point out that we killed 150.000 Indonesians in the fifties. Our much beloved royal family is going to hate it.

So "national bias" only means overproportional focus on national history (which seems to be pretty normal in every country) as opposed to "distorting" history?

Depending on the extent to which this "bias" would be implemented, this would seem like a minor point to worry about...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

It's that dratted lingering influence of Christian charity. If we'd put the kibosh on that, we'd be able to be rationally focused on ourselves first and tell the others to go hang unless there was some long-term benefit to us.

---

Yeah... I wish we could go back to crusading against Spain when they dared to say that Jesus was a mortal. Heck, give the crusades back generally, nothing stirs the blood like a good old war over some Islamic fantasy being against some Christian fantasy being (who has God on their side now we have NUKES! Huh? Take that you bad people interpreting some fantasy being in some other way).

Why even go to the crusades, we are more than happy to duke it out over vague differences in Christian belief. Not saying the crusades were not waged against Christians of course, have a look at the sacking of Constantinople or the eradication of the Katars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

So "national bias" only means overproportional focus on national history (which seems to be pretty normal in every country) as opposed to "distorting" history?

Depending on the extent to which this "bias" would be implemented, this would seem like a minor point to worry about...

---

I would argue against this. As history teacher, I might be rather biased.

History is the human memory, and we should try to keep political fidgeting to a minimum. How can we learn from history, if we change it to suit our modern day perspective?

It only means a minimum of national history, any is too much for some, turns us into Hitler. I like to call it the self-denying prophecy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

I would argue against this. As history teacher, I might be rather biased.

History is the human memory, and we should try to keep political fidgeting to a minimum. How can we learn from history, if we change it to suit our modern day perspective?

---

If you are a history teacher you would know that much of history is interpretation based on discovery, not "fact". History is a soft science and there is room for ambiguity. This is where bias creeps in and we are all biased.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

I would argue against this. As history teacher, I might be rather biased.

History is the human memory, and we should try to keep political fidgeting to a minimum. How can we learn from history, if we change it to suit our modern day perspective?

---

Still not sure if we are talking about the same thing.
"Fidgeting" implies to me that a given topic is covered with a certain biased view, e.g. facts might be presented very selectively to convey a preferred political message.
From Skullheadhq's post it is not clear to me if that is what he refers to. I would be somewhat surprised if that is what a party would openly advertise as its intent

OTOH you can also have a "national bias" by e.g., dedicating 25% of the curriculum to Dutch history. While you can also argue that this "distorts" history it is certainly something that is quite common and done most countries that I am aware of (I doubt that Asian history plays a significant role in most European schools) - and to a degree I think it also makes a lot of sense to pay special attention to the history of (or the impact of historical events on) your own country.

I really don't know what he means, but maybe it makes you understand me better once he has explained himself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Yeah... I wish we could go back to crusading against Spain when they dared to say that Jesus was a mortal. Heck, give the crusades back generally, nothing stirs the blood like a good old war over some Islamic fantasy being against some Christian fantasy being (who has God on their side now we have NUKES! Huh? Take that you bad people interpreting some fantasy being in some other way).

Why even go to the crusades, we are more than happy to duke it out over vague differences in Christian belief. Not saying the crusades were not waged against Christians of course, have a look at the sacking of Constantinople or the eradication of the Katars. ....

---

I've been a knight for more than a decade now and I have yet to see anyone call for us to take up the sword to slay the infidel. I guess I must be attending the wrong council meetings or something. You might wish to give the Catholic church credit for SOME advancement in thinking over the last nine centuries -- at least acknowledge that we don't require women to wear hats in church anymore for example.

All kidding aside, you are aware that -- should your hypothetical best world come about and we all wake up on the morrow convinced that religion is nothing but poorly written fiction -- humanity will simply find some other set of differences over which we can kill one another and exert power? I do hope you're not "polyanna" enough to think it would invoke some panacea effect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

I really don't know what he means, but maybe it makes you understand me better once he has explained himself.

---

Well more national bias amounts to what exactly? Learning about the Cultuurstelsel and the founding of Singapore instead of Enlightment or the Concert of Europe?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

Well more national bias amounts to what exactly? Learning about the Cultuurstelsel and the founding of Singapore instead of Enlightment or the Concert of Europe?

---

Why do you call it bias, the knowledge of the Netherlands is pathetic. Nothing wrong with at least a bit of it, completely normal in other country's but here the armchair-worldcitizens start hissing.

FYI: I didn't coin that term. It's just convenient to stick to the same vocabulary as that which others are using for describing something I am not sure I understand what they mean?
The knowledge of the Netherlands is such that most of it boils down to the fact everyone else is more powerful and more important as long as everyone else consists of the UK, France and Germany; and later the USA. Thus you can't understand the Dutch history without understanding the other countries a little, too.

Since history classes have a tendency to focus on 19th and 20th century history this means you can either focus on a lot of internal affairs that make little sense without understanding the wider world (how to understand the Patriotten movement without understanding contemporary events and philosophers from France and England?); or you can discuss the wider world but concede that the Netherlands got firmly pushed to the sideline by the other powers in the 18th century and thus focus on events largely centering around other countries.

Of course but it's not a major in Dutch history. I see no harm in it.

What are the Netherlands anyway?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

What are the Netherlands anyway?

---

The Netherlands? Washed up sediment of French rivers.

Which means it is French soil, thus technically France.


Seeing as how it is exceedingly cold and especially wet, we grant the semi-amphibious natives autonomy. For now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

The Netherlands? Washed up sediment of French rivers.

Which means it is French soil, thus technically France.


Seeing as how it is exceedingly cold and especially wet, we grant the semi-amphibious natives autonomy. For now.

---

You are thinking of the French Speaking Belgians.

The Netherlands (Also known as the Dutch) were a big trading Empire when France was a backwater vassal state of Spain. After a few revolutions and dead aristocrats, France began to stand on its own two feet, and when a short man from Corisa came to lead them in Battle, they became one of the greatest powers of continental Europe.

That's ok, half of our awesome little swamp exists only because of throwing mud.

one in seven french people now consider themselves racist:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...re-racist.html

But that is hardly rubbing diversity in the faces of the right, that can't be right it simply isn't possible because it can't be true. Something has to be done, let's make the 9th of juli diversity celebration day and emphasize that that obelisk is from Egypt.