The History Thread!

Christ, sounds like you guys are reasonably thorough about things.

I mean, I cannot in good conscience complain that the AP US History classes were lacking in thoroughness, because god knows we really did go in-depth, better than any college class. But what I wouldn't have given to have something do the same for world history, or even regional history. Most of what I know now, I learned independently (and Quiz Bowl has been a huge help in that regard).

So, 25 years ago today, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.

edited 1st Aug '15 10:08:19 PM by Greenmantle

Well I had Philippine History (Kas 1, or "Kasaysayan 1", Kasaysayan is "History")at college too, then Kas 2 which is Asian History (Mesopotamia, India, China, Japan, Southeast Asia, Mongolia). One of my electives was Kas 100 (which is World History). Kas 101 is the start of the more in-depth and specific history subjects, as it's Ancient and Medieval European History.

Somewhat related (but given by a different department) I also had Eng 101 (English 101), which is English Literary History.

Wait, it's been 25 years?

Holy crap. It doesn't feel like that long.

A Renaissance painting reveals how breeding changed watermelons: "Look in the bottom right corner of this painting. If you've never seen a watermelon like that before, you're not alone. This 17th-century painting by Giovanni Stanchi, courtesy of Christie's, shows a type of watermelon that no one in the modern world has seen.

Stanchi's watermelon, which was painted sometime between 1645 and 1672, offers a glimpse of a time before breeding changed the fruit forever."

Ah, come on! Eating the watermelons' seeds is nice.

For the most part I was bounced between homeschool and religious schools where we experienced the glories of history Bob Jones University style, where Africans were black because they were cursed by Noah/God and smallpox was a gift to the Native Americans to teach them humility. From what I've seen since then of the actual state curriculum, it's pretty good at covering most bases. I'd say that part of it depends on the teacher and how well they cover things.

I think the crowd source one was kind of showing the problem with crowd sourcing this at the same time the Canadian one even notes that there education was unusually progressive focusing on First Nations people, there is also the issue that there isn't really a Canadian school system it is handled Provincially. I'm noting this because well we went online and checked different sources for the American Revolution (are social studies teacher believed grade 9 students should use critical thinking skills, write essays, and do research good class but lots of homework), are text book was very much pro-loyalist anti-revolution. This was the British Columbia education system in the early to mid 2000s.

Argentine here: in MY high school (I couldn't say if it's the regular curriculum or I went to a particularly shitty school) we mostly got the "relevant" stuff from our country's history repeated with more detail every year. Then some skimming through "world history" which was first ancient Egypt and some other things in the middle east (Assyrians, Babylonians, Phoenicians, ancient Israel/Judea, Medians...) then ancient Greece (just Athens and Sparta, no mention of Alexander), then Rome (as in "there was a Roman republic that turned into an empire and at some point it split and the western half fell in 476, no mention of the eastern half), the middle age was a vacuum (to be fair, we were supposed to cover it, but there's always teacher strikes in this country) that lasted from the fall of Rome to the fall of Constantinople (but no explanation of what Constantinople was), then "modernity" where we covered Spanish colonization of America in detail (and nothing else, no reformation, no Habsburgs, no Ottomans). And it "ended" with the French revolution, which we only talk about to mention it's influence on our own revolutionaries, same for the US war of independence. Then a lot of Argentine history (I won't go into specifics about it) and some mention of the other revolutions in the Spanish colonies, explicit mention of the tiny period between 1820 and 1833 were the f*cked-up islands were technically "ours", then a mention of the Franco-Prussian war (that it happened, not why, what or any details), WW 1, the Great Depression (and how it affected Argentina), totalitarian governments (Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini and Franco, and the influence they had on Perón, because that teacher was kind of anti-peronist), and that the cold war existed (with emphasis on how the US backed the worst of the 6 military dictatorships on our country).

What the...? damn, that's a shitty thing to teach to people.

edited 2nd Aug '15 10:10:09 AM by IFwanderer

Oh for general world history we had, Roman, Mesopotamian, early man which caveman was inaccurate for (or that might have been science or combined science and Social Studies subjects are more blurred in Elementary School), and Greek in grades 6 and 7. Feudalism in Europe (mostly England and France) and Japan in Grade 8, as well as some stuff on the Middle East, and Indian history and religions (it should be noted here that we don't have history class but Social Studies which is history, geography, and to an extant Sociology) I think we wound up skipping the Renaissance though we had a chapter in our history book that I read for fun (in case you want to know what sort of kid I was)

than in Grade 9 we learned about the conditions that lead up to the French Revolution (famine, over spending, Queen from an unpopular country, tensions between the estates etc) and what happened after Reign of Terror, Napolean I think we stopped after him. Than we learned about British history, and the Reformation and Henry VIII starting the Anglican Church, and anti-Catholicism and Puritans and the rump parliament and the long parliament, and Charles Cromwell eventually dismissing parliament, and the Blue Laws, and than the new king coming, but than the next one being Catholic and the new kings they brought in from I think Netherlands or something after. And I'm getting to into minituae.

Than we didn't get any more World History until I took the optional history class in Grade 12, which covered the 20th China (which we didn't have enough time to cover everything in, and I wound up taking a College course for), and the U.S.S.R., and Russia before it (and the Japanese Russian war), and the U.S.A. and Germany and the Spanish Civil War and probably some stuff I'm missing but the teacher decided we needed to know the Great Man theory eventually and decided this was the class so I had mixed feelings about it.

edited 2nd Aug '15 10:31:13 AM by phantom1

Greetings, all. This is my first time posting in this thread.

My school, and I think Brazilian schools in general, teaches a lot of European history, and some Brazilian history. I'm finishing high school and only now I'm learning about the latter half of the 20th century in Brazil. Actually, half of the school year has gone past and we still haven't hit that point, and other than the military dictatorship, I don't know how much further we'll see. I knew more or less what had happened in the past century in Brazil, but the order of events always confused me, until now.

As someone who thinks history is a very important subject, despite thinking it's very boring, that annoys me. Mainly because pre-history and recent history are my favorite parts of history! Even if they are just barely history! I also find it annoying, even disturbing, because of political reasons, but I'm not sure if it's okay for me to talk about those here.

Now, talking only about my school, geography class also taught a lot about history, specially WWII and post-WWII politics. Sociology too, to a degree. I'm not sure how other schools treat those subjects. Heck, I don't even know how many other schools have sociology in their curriculum.

Also, if anyone has any questions about Brazilian history, I guess you could ask me (or, if you don't know what to ask, I could just talk about the bits I like the most). Though History is far from my favorite subject, I wouldn't mind sharing the little I know with someone else. I could research or ask a friend of mine, who knows much more than I do, in case you ask me about something I don't know. We just finished a three-page essay on brazilian economy during the first half of the 20th century, and that's only one third of what we were supposed to do XD Though technically it uses half of the page limit.

Uh, I guess I'm feeling more excited than usual to talk about history because I'm a little prideful from finishing my part of that homework. Just keep in mind despite writing a lot, my friend knows a lot more about economy and history than I do, so it isn't as if I knew that much. At least, not before researching to actually write that essay, of course.

They ask you to do essays on the economy? Dang. Here, we talk about the economy (usually being related to the 19th century, the First Republic or the New State), but it's barely asked in any tests or exams.

I have a question (which will require a long answer): In regards to the 20th century, what is the general consensus in regards to who is the best and who is the worst Presidents of Brazil, and why? I had an impression Juscelino Kubitschek was amongst the best ones or the best one, though I could be wrong.

edited 2nd Aug '15 12:40:26 PM by Quag15

Hello my fellow Brazilian lad.

As a Brazilian I would say my experience is not too different from Victin, but I do find quite absurd that history class around here more or less completely sidesteps the Paraguayan War, probably the most important war waged on South American history.

And we don't see nearly enough about Brazilian participation in WWII. At least in my experience.

For the most part Brazil has a weapons-grade cynism towards politicians (not without its reasons but I digress), so that question would be likely to be laughed out of the room if you did ask people.

But, the Presidents who'd probably be considered best are J.K, as you said, Getúlio Vargas (one of the great modernizers of Brazil, vanguarded women's rights and worker's rights in his time, but he was also a ruthless dictator so what can you do) and probably, the recent President Lula (who's acclaimed by some for his widespread humanitarian programs to fight off poverty and hunger, though his government was marred by titanic corruption scandals).

The worst are harder to pin, and probably depend on the political agenda of the person you ask. A more left-leaning person might state Médici (the most brutal of all the Dictatorship-era presidents, responsible for some extremely gory affairs of murder, torture, censorship and others) and in general all of the Dictatorship-era presidents, but Médici is the most recognizable (and indeed the most heinous). As of late it's not unheard for President Dilma (our current president) to get that dubious honor (due several corruption scandals, to be vague about it).

Most of the others kind of slip by the radar, I think.

If you asked for best ruler, you'd probably get Emperor Dom Pedro II.

edited 2nd Aug '15 12:48:46 PM by Gaon

I can vouch for my school not going much into the paraguayan war.

Victin: Are you allowed to share that essay? Or at least the information you learned and consulted while writing it?

It sounds like something I'd like reading, given recent events.

My school also had sociology.

edited 2nd Aug '15 12:56:27 PM by SaintDeltora

They didn't touch on it in Argentina either. For why it wasn't taught here, I guess it's because it's hard to spin "the two biggest countries in southamerica, and Uruguay, ganged up on another country and killing 70% of it's adult male population" into something that makes us look good. Not sure about Brazil.

My school actually brought up that detail, curiously.

Even if that were true (and from what I researched, that isn't actually true, the narrative of "Brazil and Argentina team up to genocide Paraguayans" is a historical caricature), it's crucial to study the Paraguayan War because seriously, it's the largest war ever waged on South America, and it directly altered the fate of the entire South American axis of power in the 19th century, not to mention its social and technological rammifications.

True. The same happens here in a certain way, though in an arguably more downplayed form.

Ah, yes, forgot about Getúlio (though him being a bit of a divisive figure does not entirely help matters). As for Lula, I can I can see how divisive he is in his own way as well. Correct me if I'm wrong.

You guys had a president named Médici? There's a potentially witty historical joke to be written somewhere, methinks (because, you know, House of Medici and all that). But yeah, the Dictatorship era is one I don't tend to read about in detail (unless I'm reading about the Tropicalismo/Tropicália movement).

I also assume Dilma gets the dubious honour from the more right-leaning people.

True. I think we even talked about him here many pages ago in a couple of posts.

edited 2nd Aug '15 2:24:53 PM by Quag15

Gaon did a Brazilian history series with him as one of the central players, if I recall. Kinda tempted to try the same thing with the American Revolution since it's such a footnote for so may of us.

I do recall the series and helped to give some footnotes and background (from the Portuguese side of things) to it. I'll see if I can find it somewhere.

Mind linking?

Canadian History. I vaguely remember learning about the pioneer days, the Middle Ages and ancient civilizations in Ekementary schools. Canadian History proper really began in 7th grade, where we learned about the colonial era from the beginnings of French exploration to the British conquests, the United Empire Loyalists and the War of 1812 to the mid 19th century, with 8th grade extending it into the late 19th century, Confederation, and the Métis Rebellions. I can't remember if I did history in Grade 9, but I definitely remember 10th Grade history extending Canadian history to the present day (WWI and WWII, Pearson, Trudeau, Quebec seperatism et al). 11th grade history extended the topic to World History up to 1500 (Mesopotamia, Greece, Rome and Medieval Europe, and we did projects about non-Western societies), while Grade 12 was the history of the Western world from 1500 to the end of the Cold War. In 1st year university, I took the development of European civilization from 1300-1945 (with an end note about the Cold War and the rise of the EU), in which I don't remember learning anything about the American Revolution and its relation to France.

edited 2nd Aug '15 2:54:57 PM by SantosLHalper

Found it.

Part I.

Part II.

Part III.

Part IV.

Part V.

@Quag: Well, it's a 4 to 6 pages essay on economy, politics and society of Brazil, from 1889 to 1964. Economy itself is asked on a test on occasion. Usually one question asking about the specifics of, say, mercantilism. It's probably asked more in geography and sociology exams. Actually I think it could be said that's the focus of this year's geography studies? However, I do think this essay was more in-depth than that (maybe even too deep, we might have to cut stuff off).

Regarding your question: I can't speak too much of the presidents on the latter half of the 20th century, because I have no idea who most of those people are. I've heard about them multiple times, but since I haven't studied them at school, my knowledge is topical at best, and I have no idea in which order they were elected. But let me see if I can summarize what I know, and a little of my opinion:

• Between 1889 and 1930 there isn't too much I can say. Names of presidents were mentioned, but we didn't study their mandates. We only talked specifically about the first two, but those were president still in the 19th century, which isn't what you asked for. I can talk about them, if you want me to.

• 1930, President Getúlio Vargas takes power, and this one I find... interesting. He didn't win the presidential election, but Júlio Prestes (in case you ever heard of Luís Carlos Prestes, they aren't the same guy) was prevented from even taking office, under accusations of cheating the ballots, something both sides did. Getúlio Vargas was supposed to be in charge temporarily, but one coup d'etat later and he was in charge permanently (until 1945). Still, it was him whom legalized female suffrage, secret votes (both of which were meaningless after he became dictator), and even many worker's rights (some of which were actually ways to control worker unions, and none of which were actually meaningful for rural workers). It was during his government that the industry finally kicked in and became a meaningful section of brazilian economy. Many national, state-owned companies were made during this period (even if they were eventually privatized, by more recent governments). Why isn't his government considered facist, despite even being during the right time period? First of all, there was a political part: Vargas' party and only that one. Second of all, we "fought" alongside the US in WWII.

• In 1945, Vargas' dictatorship ends, and President Dutra takes office. Not much to say about him, moving on.

• Guess who takes power in 1951? Getúlio Vargas, I kid you not. He was elected president. However, due to pressure by the population, military and politically powerful sectors, almost suffering a coup d'etat, he finishes his office by killing himself.

• Afterwards, we have President Juscelino Kubitschek. From what I heard about him, I used to think he was the best Brazilian president, with Emperor Dom Pedro II as second best ruler Brazil ever had... But then I studied both of those at school and changed my mind completely. JK's office ended with economical crisis, almost none of his goals were achieved, and the occupation of Western Brazil was done in a way that screwed with the poor population and the native Brazilians.

• Juscelino Kubitschek was followed by Jânio Quadros in 1961, but a polemic office quickly gets him kicked out in favor of João Goulart, who I think took power legally. He finally gave rural workers some rights, allowing them to have syndicates. It seems his time in power was also polemic, because it was in 1964 that the Military Dictatorship begins. This is as far as I've studied, so here goes the little else I know:

• You probably aren't looking for the best president during the dictatorship. Maybe the less worse. I remembe a talk I had once with an older acquaintance, back when she was in the same school year as I am, and I think she told me her personal opinion on it, but I can't remember whom she was talking about. Oh, and, well... There are people who consider the dictatorship the best government of brazilian history. After the dictatorship, I remember some names. Collor, for example, changed the currency to Real, and managed to get Brazil out of the economic crisis (or I'm completely wrong about this). Fernando Henrique Cardoso... Dunno what he did, but I've seen the candidate he supported in the last presidential elected, and I believe my friends wouldn't vote neither for that candidate or FHC.

• I think Luís Inácio Lula da Silva's, better known as Lula, office was right after FHC. I was a kid, and eventually a pre-teen, during that period, so while I lived during his rule, I don't know much about it. I know he started some social policies against poverty and hunger, most famously of all "Bolsa Família", that guarantees economical aid to poor families, as long as their children are vaccinated and in school. Following him we had Dilma, the current president after re-election (Lula was also elected twice). Her government's popularity crashed this year, if the data shown on TV is to be believed. I don't want to be one of those people, but yeah, the data in TV isn't very truthful. A series of protests, called by some Brazilian Spring, among other names, reunited over one million people in the streets of Rio de Janeiro, for example. And they reported the technically correct over 100 thousand. Again, I'm not kidding, look at this (random article I googled). Also don't let them misled you, there were fights with the police. By the way, remember when I said some people considered the dictatorship the best government in brazilian history? I wish this was the only picture of its kind, but it isn't... (It's in Engrish, if you don't speak Portuguese)

Despite being recent, I don't know too much about Lula's and now Dilma's government because only in the past year, or maybe past two years if you squint really hard, is that I started caring about politics, and a few other topics. I kinda feel bad it took me so long. Anyways, this was a very summarized view of Brazilian presidents, not even politicians in general, during the 20th century, and I'm sure my opinion and judgement heavily affected what I wrote, so if you have to talk about brazilian politics... please don't quote me on this Or do, but point this out.

Seeing that you're from Portugal... I never got the chance to ask this to any of my Portuguese relatives, and my grandparents have been in Brazil for a long time, but what do you think about Dom João VI?

Oh, and I'm pretty sure ever since Vargas' time in power, communism has been an easy way to accuse any president one doesn't like. I could talk a little about it, but this is already a huge post.

@Gaon: Brazilian participation in WWII? What is that? Is it something I can eat? Now, seriously, my knowledge of that is: we did nothing. Well, I sorta remember maybe a battle that was important and we helped? But I don't remember it from school, rather, from news somewhere. So yeah... I do remember my teacher mentioning we were allowed control of some part of Germany? Or... It was a meaningful reward due to the contribution with the war, mostly because the USA wanted us on their side, but I think the general in command there was like: "what, why would we want that? No, thanks." And that was a greeeeeeeeaaaaaaat idea. Also, fuck that smoking snake, it's so stupid >_>

I believe you're right regarding the most popular brazilian presidents and rulers, even if my personal opinion differs. However, while brazilians are very cynical towards presidents, I think there's also a lot of idealism going on too, but that's better discussed with an actual example, and discussing that in relation to the actual political scenario might not end well. Not saying that you wouldn't keep a civil debate, but I don't have any, uh, good examples to talk about, let me put it this way. Although, historically, Brazilian literature was nationalist and idealist. It got better, but it was there, mainly during Romanticism.

@Saint Deltora: My school also didn't talk too much about the paraguayan war. Problem is, I don't remember how much we actually studied about it, so maybe we studied it more than I think...

My friend gave me permission, so here it is. And apparently it's not quite finished yet. It's missing the second Vargas office. He was supposed to write it, but hadn't had the time yet. Well, I was going to do it, but since I didn't know the information I had found talked about the Vargas Dictatorship or his time as a legally elected president, I asked him if he could do it for me, and we have plenty of time, so I'm not complaining too much.

@I Fwanderer: My school also brought up that detail... but I think the number was closer to 50%? Again, I don't remember much...

@Victin: Took the number from Wikipedia, as I said, education here in Argentina is shitty, I learned most of anything or relatively complex about science, history or related topics (both "soft" and "hard" sciences) through other means (internet, books, documentaries, etc).

edited 2nd Aug '15 3:06:31 PM by IFwanderer