I am an American currently enrolled in my AP European History course in highschool. We were studying the Cold War some time ago, and my history book mentioned several United States achievements in the field of Space Flight. I.E It talks about Neil Armstrong as the first man on the moon as an important achievement of the United States that helped them to gain prestige in a time when Soviets were being successful.

But my book doesn't mention anything about Soviet space achievements. Though this book was written by an American scholar (Published year 2001), it is a book about Europe and Russia is closer to Europe than America is. What I found ironic was that it had no mention of even the Sputnik, one of the more clichéd parts of the Cold War, much less anything.

Yuri Gagarin was the first man in space, and the Sputnik was the first satelite. Yet we Americans still praise and rave about Armstrong because of the moon. I'm not saying that the USSR achievements were better or worse, but they do still need to be at least mentioned.

I was inspired to write this because I was watching a documentary on the History channel about the international space flight which combined Russian and American astronauts on the same mission. In America this event was largely ignored and was not mentioned much by media, while the Russians rejoiced at working with the Americans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Gagarin

That's an American tendency in a lot of fields. Canadians and British on D-Day for example. Sad but true... :(

Basicly, we dont want our faces to be rubbed into the embarresment of our space program *Shrugs*

I doubt that it's that. The U.S has the best space program of any country. The Soviets had a better space program for a while, but we quickly defeated them in that field.

It was quite embarressing for Americans for awhile..We had like 3 or 4 shuttles blow up in a row didnt we?

It was quite embarressing for Americans for awhile..We had like 3 or 4 shuttles blow up in a row didnt we?
Does that matter? Why does early failure constitute ignoring history?

I've never seen a history book that didn't acknowledge that sputnik was the first into space. As far as Soviet achievements, they played it close to the vest, not giving a lot of info to the general public ( due too several disasters we never knew of ) After their initial sucesses they fell way behind us till it seem a one country race--in truth they were trying hard but had a run off very bad luck that the world didn't know about.

That's because Americans were the first to achieve it. It's about as idealized as the American Revolution. All though sputnik generally isn't openly called the first into space or referred to as a trupimih, it doesn't matter. That isn't American history. But most textbooks do generally talk about the cultural outcome of sputnik because that is American history.

Because it's American history and not a history of western civilization, maybe.

Because it's American history and not a history of western civilization, maybe.
It's an AP EUROPEAN HISTORY course. I would think that Russia has more to do with Europe than the USA, since it's technically in Europe. I agree that USA should be there since it's very heavily influenced by Europeans, but simply ignoring Russian achievements in favour of American ones seems rather strage to me.

Ah, then the answer (atleast mine anyway) would be that the auidence is directed to Americans. In my experience, high school classes only break the biased barrier when the teacher has another bias to counter against it. All though don’t confuse this as a deliberate effort, but think instead of a person trying to decide on what is there to cut. Adding every piece of information will take too long to go over and goes beyond a level 100 history course. :)


edit: also, sorry for confusing your class to focus on American history. I guess I just never actually heard of a high school European history class. Damm'd public schools. And it popped promptly into my head when I heard 'American', 'high school', and 'A.P'.

It's an AP EUROPEAN HISTORY course. I would think that Russia has more to do with Europe than the USA, since it's technically in Europe. I agree that USA should be there since it's very heavily influenced by Europeans, but simply ignoring Russian achievements in favour of American ones seems rather strage to me.

I won't say that bias isn't involved (it doubtless is), but one factor is
that in American thinking Russia is often thought of in terms of Asia instead
of Europe, depspite the fact that most of the population is in Europe.

It's an AP EUROPEAN HISTORY course. I would think that Russia has more to do with Europe than the USA, since it's technically in Europe. I agree that USA should be there since it's very heavily influenced by Europeans, but simply ignoring Russian achievements in favour of American ones seems rather strage to me.


Nevermind me, I'm just an idiot who doesn't read posts carefully enough... :lol:

That's because Americans were the first to achieve it. It's about as idealized as the American Revolution. All though sputnik generally isn't openly called the first into space or referred to as a trupimih, it doesn't matter. That isn't American history. But most textbooks do generally talk about the cultural outcome of sputnik because that is American history.
It's not as if the Soviets didn't do something similar.

The Soviet space program was elevated to a piece of Soviet mythology with space museums springing up like mushrooms, statues of Gagaring in his space-suite looking like Christ etc.

Looking at the Soviet version, you might easily miss the little piece of info that the Americans were first on the moon. :crazyeye:

In my experience, high school classes only break the biased barrier when the teacher has another bias to counter against it.

I have to say, and judging solely from what I have seen in posts on the subject on these fora, that the US education system seems to beat even the Japanese one on teaching extraordinarily skewed and one-sided views of history. I have very intelligent and well-educated American friends who have said things like, "The only thing I know about George III is what he did to the American colonies." Extraordinary...

Funny thing is, after the space shuttle disaster (second one), Russians were only nation capable of resupplying the ISS. Even US astronauts had to be towed into space by Russian rockets. Hehe, that sounds quite funny to me.

One possible (unlikely) reason at the heart of it is the reason for the early Russian technical lead.

Russian nuclear warheads were much larger than American ones. Which meant the early American space rockets had a titchy payload.

It's more than a little embarrassing that the reason for the early lead was expertise in building weapons of mass destruction.

Read "Lies My Teacher Told Me" (James W. Loewen) for a real eye-opener. History is rarely, if ever, objective.

During the Cold War, both sides did their best to ignore the achievements of the other side. Its why Stalingrad and Yuri Gagarin are ignored in favor of D-Day and Niel Armstrong.

Often, things aren't completely ignored, though, so this is an odd case.

April 12 is Yuri's Night, the anniversary of his space flight, and there are numerous groups of space enthusiasts in the US (and around the world) who celebrate it. Hopefully, it will catch on.

There could be many reasons, let's see.
1. They were communists
2. They were communists
and 3. They were communists and we still do not trust them. (Especially for the fact the communist party is aparently still big in Russia. :hmm: )

Actually, from my perspective the Americans pay a considerable amount of attention to Soviet space achievements. I've watched a few American history-of-humans-in-space programs and while they present the Soviets as being in competition, still they did present all the crucial Soviet advances, from Sputnik to Gagarin to being very close to a successful moon landing. I've watched two programs about Yuri Gagarin, one as a bio and another that explored a conspiracy theory (apparently popular among Soviet scientists; not sure) that another Soviet pilot whose name escapes me was actually the first man in space but because he didn't survive re-entry the Soviets shot Gagarin up days later and touted him as the first man.

In any event, what I do remember is that the Soviets told us almost nothing about what the Americans did in space, or, given today's anniversary, every Soviet (or Soviet-"inspired") documentary and book on World War II barely mentioned anyone else but the Soviets. They had a healthy habit of pretending they won the war single-handedly. In the early years in Poland (1944-1965) one wasn't even allowed to admit that Poles had fought for the Allies; only our Soviet brothers did. No one else. British? Americans? Who?

In my university in Hungary they had a huge display in one prominent foyer on a stairwell dedicated to Farkas Bertalan - the first (and so far only) Hungarian in space. That's how we knew that it wasn't only the Soviets in space... ;)

Actually, from my perspective the Americans pay a considerable amount of attention to Soviet space achievements. I've watched a few American history-of-humans-in-space programs and while they present the Soviets as being in competition, still they did present all the crucial Soviet advances, from Sputnik to Gagarin to being very close to a successful moon landing. I've watched two programs about Yuri Gagarin, one as a bio and another that explored a conspiracy theory (apparently popular among Soviet scientists; not sure) that another Soviet pilot whose name escapes me was actually the first man in space but because he didn't survive re-entry the Soviets shot Gagarin up days later and touted him as the first man.

In any event, what I do remember is that the Soviets told us almost nothing about what the Americans did in space, or, given today's anniversary, every Soviet (or Soviet-"inspired") documentary and book on World War II barely mentioned anyone else but the Soviets. They had a healthy habit of pretending they won the war single-handedly. In the early years in Poland (1944-1965) one wasn't even allowed to admit that Poles had fought for the Allies; only our Soviet brothers did. No one else. British? Americans? Who?

In my university in Hungary they had a huge display in one prominent foyer on a stairwell dedicated to Farkas Bertalan - the first (and so far only) Hungarian in space. That's how we knew that it wasn't only the Soviets in space... ;)

I can admit that the Soviet propaganda told us mostly about our own achievements while ignoring those made by Americans. Yes, the fact the Allies participated in the WW2 was neglected for a long time. Yes, there were so many lies.

But now times are different. We know better our history, as well as your history. Whatever most of you say, we have an access to different point of views via TV, Internet, mass-media. We know what lend-lease is and that it was a real help, we know about the D-Day. But I am getting annoyed when I watch interviews made in American high schools where students say that WW2 was won by America and started by the USSR. It happens THESE days, not 15 years ago. What is that? American propaganda? Why do the USA, Baltic States, the UK try to rewrite the history? You cannot deny us this victory. 20+ mln. Soviet people - that's the cost of that war. Today is the V-Day in Russia. My congratulations to those who still realise the price we and the Allies paid for it.

But I am getting annoyed when I watch interviews made in American high schools where students say that WW2 was won by America and started by the USSR.
Yes, and you will find polls indicating the US majority thinks they fought against the evil USSR in WW2.
Ignore it.
A considerable % of Americans (including High School students) know even less about foreign countries than the typical Europeans or Asians.
But a considerable % of Americans also know more about other parts of the world. And I'd guess most CFC members belong to this group.

It's just that a broader base of Euros has some knowledge.
And, because of recent history, Euros trust their Governments even less.

On topic:
Can't tell how the situation is exactly in US; but, in Germany the Russian achievements are known - if we still know a lot less about the Soviet space program, it's simply because they kept it a lot more secret. Gagarin, Sputnik, that lunar tank - the Mir. Nothing in between.

Yes, and you will find polls indicating the US majority thinks they fought against the evil USSR in WW2.

This is a load of bull-stuff. I am living in new hampshire now, and have lived for some years now in 4 American states: NY, NJ, MA and now NH. I have never heard any American claim that the U.S. was fighting the USSR in World War II. I'm sure there's someone out there who does believe it, but I'd like to remind you I've also heard some Europeans - one English woman in particular comes to mind - tell some pretty bizarre things.

I'm not sure who compiles these statistics but no one seems to ask where they come from and what methodology was used to produce them. Wasn't it the American writer Mark Twain who once said, "There are many types of lies in this world: Lies, Damned lies and Statistics"? Many American friends have children in schools and they seem to me to be able to hold a fairly sophisticated discussion on world affairs, given their age.

A considerable % of Americans (including High School students) know even less about foreign countries than the typical Europeans or Asians.

Actually, in a thread - in this forum? another? - I recall posters from all over the world dsecribing their secondary school history education and overall it seemed the Americans had covered the most territory. My friend's son, who attends a dumpy little public high school in a small town, has had to study African, Asian and European history as well as American. I don't remember Africa being taught in my school...

Perhaps this experiment should be re-created here: What subjects in History, year-by-year, did everyone study in their secondary school?

Also, I think it's important to remember that Europe is a peninsula - a very crowded peninsula, where (except for Russia, Britain, etc.) it is nearly impossible to go more than a few hundred kilometers without meeting an entirely different culture, language and people. In North America you can travel thousands of kilometers and still be surrounded by people who speak the same language. Also, Europeans have long histories together - of invading each other, and we've all gotten to know one another rather intimately through this means. Western Europeans tend to know a lot about themselves, and then decreasingly something about their former colonial possessions (in North Africa, Asia, etc.)

That brings me to a point I usually bring up in these discussions, which is that Western Europeans are often very knowledgable about Western Europe (and get very annoyed when Americans don't know some aspect of Western Euroep) - but almost stunningly ignorant about Eastern Europe - its geography, its history and its peoples. Western Europeans often refer to "Europe", but by that they usually only mean "Western Europe" up to the Elbe River. The Russians are a bit luckier because they've played a large role in recent (post-18th c.) European history so most Western Europeans know a little something about the Russians, but that's about it. Norman Davies talks about this phenomenon at length in the Intro to his book Europe, a History, on why Western Europeans know so little about Eastern Europe. As someone who could speak English at my university in Hungary I was often given escort and translator duties for university visitors including Western professors, and most of them stunned me with their ignorance of anything to do with Eastern Europe - and some were full professors of "European" (i.e., Western European) history. One professor, British if I remember correctly, actually asked me if he was now in the Soviet Union (in southwestern Hungary). Hopefully the EU enlargement will change all that...

Vrylakas, I think you completely misread my post.
For the most parts, I agree with you anyway.
And if you cite my remark about the ignorant % of Americans, why don't you cite the next line as well?

Btw, you're pretty correct about the Western European ignorance for the Eastern half as well; but, don't underestimate the ignorance of for example the former GDR folks - I (as a Bavarian) had Russian in school because I was interested in it; and it turned out that I knew that language better, and knew more about Russia than most of those who were forced to learn it and admire the Big Brother.

Actually, in a thread - in this forum? another? - I recall posters from all over the world dsecribing their secondary school history education and overall it seemed the Americans had covered the most territory.


In OT there was a thread a few months back on Japan--a survey showed most Japanese school kids couldn't find countries on a map, knew little about past history not directly related to them,ect... It seems to be comman to all schools kids now days.

When I took AP European History our book mentioned the achievements of the Russian space program but it mostly focused on the cold war, arm's race, and each superpowers involvement in Europe.

Our class really didn’t mention much about the US other then our involvement in WWI, WWII, and the cold war. It’s not surprising though given that the US did not exist for the majority of European recorded history and didn’t have much impact on Europe until the 20th century.

My only gripe with the class is that it started around 1000 AD, and failed to mention the dark ages and the decline and fall of the Roman Empire (my two personal favorite topics in history). I suppose there just wasn’t enough time for it.

Doc,

Sorry if I over-reacted; this is one of those cyclical arguments that gets tossed around the CFC every once in a while. That's why I avoid the OT nowadays.

In OT there was a thread a few months back on Japan--a survey showed most Japanese school kids couldn't find countries on a map, knew little about past history not directly related to them,ect... It seems to be comman to all schools kids now days.

It is ironic if true, that in an age of unparalleled globalism and international interaction, an increasing numbr of people know less about other peoples and countries...

Btw, you're pretty correct about the Western European ignorance for the Eastern half as well; but, don't underestimate the ignorance of for example the former GDR folks - I (as a Bavarian) had Russian in school because I was interested in it; and it turned out that I knew that language better, and knew more about Russia than most of those who were forced to learn it and admire the Big Brother.

A language you're interested in is always easier to study than one you are forced to for political reasons. Very few of my fellow students or colleagues took their Russian class seriously. In fact, it was a trademark of pride if you didn't understand Russian. It is sad because Russian is a beautiful language, but the language of oppressors is always tainted with political poison...

My point in my last post was that in my life and travels I've met people from all over the world and some have been both worldly and knowledgeable, while others have been utter dolts who had an amazing ignorance of the world they live in. I have yet to see any particular group or people that has overwhelmingly produced one or the other kind of people, and yet we always see these statistics showing that this or that group of kids or people can't identify the most basic geographic or historical points... It always makes me suspicious about the motives of the pollsters.

Because we made it to the moon.

My AP European History class covered the Russian space achievements such as Mir, Sputnik, and Gagarin's flight quite well. It's probably just that your teacher didn't cover it well.

In OT there was a thread a few months back on Japan--a survey showed most Japanese school kids couldn't find countries on a map, knew little about past history not directly related to them,ect... It seems to be comman to all schools kids now days.

During World War II, over half of Texan students did not know who Sam Houston was.

During World War II, over half of Texan students did not know who Sam Houston was.

Crazy!Just ignorant bigots!

Hope they get well now.

During World War II, over half of Texan students did not know who Sam Houston was.

:lol: What a bunch of ignorants!

Umm..yeah. Who is this Sam Houston :confused:?

Obviously he must have achieved something, so they named a city for him. Do the citizens of Luisiana know who Louis was? Do the citizens of Plovdiv know Phillipus? Ludwigsburg? Saarlouis? Jekaterinburg?

Don't get me wrong, I can wiki for him myself - I just don't understand why Sam of all people should be known to students?

Sam Houston gained independence of Texas from Mexico,after several bloody battles and Alamo massacre.

Don't get me wrong, I can wiki for him myself - I just don't understand why Sam of all people should be known to students?

Not all students--Texas students, he was the leader of Texas independence. Thats like a Russian never hearing of Lenin, An Englishmen never hearing of Victoria, Ect.... ( not that they got independence but their impact )

EDIT: Not to be unpolitically correct but 1/2 of Texas students are Mexican and it's not as a big thing to them.

I come from Slovenia. How many people here know anything about Slovenia without searching the web or world atlas, etc...
Hehe, hard isn't it?
Well, let me console you, I don't know much about Wyoming or Baden-Wurtemberg neither.

I have a general idea of where Slovenia is... :mischief:

Anyways, we can't really say that it's getting worse. I bet that if you got a time machine and surveyed people 100 years ago, they would know even less than we do now. And I am not entirely sure it matters that much. Sure, I can find Slovenia on a map while many can't, but then they can reliably change a tire, which is far more useful on a day-to-day basis, but they don't (usually) speak of the shocking ignorance I possess for not having this skill.

PS No criticism to Slovenia, of course.

*actually you were misinformed ;)*

My only gripe with the class is that it started around 1000 AD, and failed to mention the dark ages and the decline and fall of the Roman Empire (my two personal favorite topics in history). I suppose there just wasn’t enough time for it.
Hate to dissapoint you, but the Roman Empire ended around 7AD and the Dark ages began to end around 1000AD. You surely meant the Holy Roman Empire.

Nothing to add on the topic itself as I learned nothing new. My personal observation is that while Russia begins to uncover a lot of things from their (secret) past while US is still driven by the same doctrines.

Is'nt it inevtible that all countries put whatever spin on history they want, and with the US being the dominant culture of the western world for the last however long - we automatically get their slant on things.

Sozez has a point - i think europeans are quite fortunate in their history and geography education, i mean at least quite alot of people in the UK would know where slovenia is, the americans always seem to pour over bits of thier history that anywhere else would'nt be thought of as important, i suppose thats becuase they havent really got much of it.

Hate to dissapoint you, but the Roman Empire ended around 7AD and the Dark ages began to end around 1000AD. You surely meant the Holy Roman Empire.

What *are* you on about? The Roman Empire ended in AD 7?? That's more like when it was beginning. In any case, both the Roman Empire and the Dark Ages were before AD 1000, which is why Riesstiu IV wasn't taught them, to his annoyance. The Holy Roman Empire, by contrast, was around until the nineteenth century, at least in name.

What *are* you on about? The Roman Empire ended in AD 7?? That's more like when it was beginning. In any case, both the Roman Empire and the Dark Ages were before AD 1000, which is why Riesstiu IV wasn't taught them, to his annoyance. The Holy Roman Empire, by contrast, was around until the nineteenth century, at least in name.
I said exactly the same thing as you did now....
Except that Rome was taken in 476.... still that doesn't classify as a beginning.

I said exactly the same thing as you did now....
Except that Rome was taken in 476.... still that doesn't classify as a beginning.

No you didn't.


My only gripe with the class is that it started around 1000 AD, and failed to mention the dark ages and the decline and fall of the Roman Empire (my two personal favorite topics in history). I suppose there just wasn’t enough time for it.

The Decline and fall of the Roman Empire is generally perceived to be from the reign of Emperor Commodus (180 AD) to the ousting of the Western Emperor Romulus Augustulus in 476 AD. The dark ages is roughly 500 AD - 1000 AD. This entire time period takes place before 1000 AD. My AP European history class started teaching European history from 1000 AD.

No you didn't.
Yes I did. :rolleyes:

Latest news: Russians will demand more rights at International Space Station Project if NASA fails to prepare space shuttle Discovery for lift off. Roskosmos also warns, NASA should remove Discovery's reservoir with that of Atlantis.

Looks like Russians are winning space race once again.

Its only natural that politics determines how we treat history and what we study.

Latest news: Russians will demand more rights at International Space Station Project if NASA fails to prepare space shuttle Discovery for lift off. Roskosmos also warns, NASA should remove Discovery's reservoir with that of Atlantis.

Looks like Russians are winning space race once again.
I'm very curious about that. Could you provide a link?

I come from Slovenia. How many people here know anything about Slovenia without searching the web or world atlas, etc...
Hehe, hard isn't it?
Well, let me console you, I don't know much about Wyoming or Baden-Wurtemberg neither.

I traded a backpack with a Slovenian scout in the last World Jamboree. Former Yugoslavian place.

Now, if anyone here knew where Malaysia was....

That's an American tendency in a lot of fields. Canadians and British on D-Day for example. Sad but true... :(

Actually, I remember learning about Sputnik, and several Russian space firsts in the 50s. I guess not all American schools are like that. :)

You know, I was wondering the same thing (for different technologies).

Infact my questions was "Why does the Civilization-series have so much pro-US bias?"

They ignore modern technologies that they don't have or did not invent. They ignore Russian and British achievements in the modern age. They play-up American ideas they believe to be valuable even if history proved otherwise.

As a non-American, playing Civilization 3 can be quite frustrating :sad:

Now, if anyone here knew where Malaysia was....

Given that Malaysia is one of the top destinations for backpack-toting year-outers, I'd have thought everyone would know where it is.

Actually, I remember learning about Sputnik, and several Russian space firsts in the 50s. I guess not all American schools are like that. :)
I think that there's a larger than usual spread in American education; in that most Noble Prizes are won by Americans, while, on the other hand, some rednecks people can't even find their own backside with a map...

At my school in Britain we dont do any foreign history realy only a little bit in 1st and 2nd year.So i dont think the problem is confined to America I think most nations teach stuff mainly about there own history.

I started ancient history in 6th or 7th grade (out of 11) and Russian history came a year or two later when we began Middle Ages... so we don't have that much of a problem...

Where were you educated.Just wondering as most countrys seem to ignore other countrys history.

Infact my questions was "Why does the Civilization-series have so much pro-US bias?"
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that Civ is developed by an American company, published by an American company, and predominantly played and purchased by Americans.

While I have you, could you cite specific examples of this bias?

They ignore modern technologies that they don't have or did not invent. They ignore Russian and British achievements in the modern age.
Who's "they", and what do you mean by "don't have" and "ignore"? You realize you can play any Civ you want, no?

Where were you educated.Just wondering as most countrys seem to ignore other countrys history.

Russia, till grade 9, but I have the full 11 grade diploma.
I felt that in all places in the world students start history from the ancient world and move on to the modern age with a special class for your home history. Thats what we had at least.... did you have it different?