Intent matters though. Malicious actors, who are very much in power, will use the information to target universities and ideas [1] they don't like. Don't build databases for your enemies. Censuses were a great tool too, until certain people took power, then destroying them became the moral thing to do [2].
[1] https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/academic-...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1943_Amsterdam_civil_registry_...
[flagged]
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.
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?
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."
[flagged]
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?
Oh, I hadn't considered that there are complex and nuanced reasons why only white wrongdoing is discussed, and by others is ignored.
> 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.
It is nothing of the sort. "Orientalism" is not about Barbary slave raids that emptied whole villages, about Ottoman invaders colonizing half of eastern Europe for centuries, or about the Islamic invasion of Spain. Instead it's focused on problematizing the fact that Europeans viewed these invaders as an 'other', and did not accept and welcome them as their own.
There is, notably, not a similar course chiding native Americans for seeing Europeans as 'other'. There's not even a course problematizing how Ottomans viewed [1] Europe.
You're free to invent further sophisticated reasons why this ridiculous cherry-picking is all perfectly natural and not motivated at all. I am done.
[1] Sorry did I say 'viewed'? I meant 'view', present tense: “Have five children, not three. You are Europe’s future.” - https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/recep-tayyip-erdogan-tells-t...
[flagged]
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.
From a European perspective this response and your other comments ranting about "pronouns" and "Marxist ideology" makes me think you're either a troll parroting bizarre US political memes or, if serious, you're the one indoctrinated in a radical ideology. Either way, I suggest closing the browser and talking to people in real life.