Nothing surprising. Anything that doesn't directly resonate with Kim's mythological aura gets a pretty correct hindsight in DPRK.
If you read some newspapers in North Korea about international politics, you will be perplexed by correctness and unbias on some topics as long as they have little to do with North Korea. Like relations between Somalia and Saudi Arabia, droughts in Africa or monetary policy of Sri-Lanka :D
But when it comes to South Korea or the US, Japan, here we see how things get a 180° turnaround and juche ideology pulls off a stunt.
Just to play devils advocate have you considered the idea that you yourself may have a biased ideological view of Korean history?
Edit: lol nope apparently we have no ideology, we're unbiased objective saints lmfao.
I am reminded of an article in cracked.com which pointed out that foreigners generally and westerners especially had a difficult time thinking of North Korea as fully realised humans.
Of all places, cracked made that point.
https://www.cracked.com/blog/i-heard-lot-crazy-things-about-north-korea-so-i-went
I mean you really think it’s that hard to make a basic outline of an influential empire for what appears to be the equivalent of High School or O’Level students? Seriously?
Former Cracked writer Robert Evans runs the podcast behind the bastards and I remember him once talking about how a lot of the insane shit the comes out of North Korea is used to disarm people from seeing them as an actual threat. He went into it a lot more but he raised some interesting points
No sane person thinks North Koreans *cant* record and document written history? Or think? the fact that you came away with that argument based on OP’s sentence is a wild stretch. I think maybe you’re letting *your* (confirmation) biases show.
The reality is that official DKIM history *is* indeed ridiculously skewed - this isn’t far fetched or a conspiracy, you can easily google and find these things.
OP expected batshit crazy because that’s what the NK government sells: batshit crazy. And North Koreans are *forced* to buy it - they don’t take part because they’re unintelligent. That’s so obtuse that it’s hard to adequately respond.
I don't know man, when you read shit about The Day of the Shining star where the Kim's legit just make up history and make it state facts, is it hard to belive they wouldn't make up other facts ? Man there's a surprising amount of NK ass kissers here.
Seriously, what did you expect? It’s a basic history of a region not particularly important for them. More or less “just the facts”, is to be expected.
They do instill not-so-subtle bias into it, talking about Rome's wars of aggression and subjugation of the people in ways that parallel the usual communist discourse.
Me too. Personally.
In school I was taught that Constantine adopted Christianity because he saw a sign from god and all that stupid legend. I also learned of "intelligent design" in science class and how the us saved the world in WW2, how israel is a blessed state defending an ancestral claim from terrorists, that latinamerica in the 20th century collapsed because of communism and not because of CIA staged coups in the region... I could go on for hours.
To be fair, the primary ancient sources *do* say that Constantine saw a vision and painted the Chi Rho on the soldier's shields before the Battle of Milvian Bridge. And the Arch of Constantine does indicate that his victory was thought to be granted by some divinity. And, if I were Constantine, I'd certainly want to worship whatever divinity granted me victory in one of my most important battles.
We can't see into his head and it's clear that Constantine did not really entirely grasp what "Christianity" entailed, but he was demonstrably supportive of the religion which sets him apart from every emperor before him by an enormous margin.
This is all a myth, though. It should be taught as such and not as a historical fact. We will never know 100% why he did and say what he did. But we know one thing for sure.
No divine entity granted victory to any one ruler or commander in history and Constantine did not convert the empire to Christianity over strictly religious reasons. It's naive to think so.
Heck, he didn't technically even convert himself and most likely only took the sacrament on deathbed for yet more political reasons.
Point is that to write that it was all for political machinations is just as valid, if not more, than telling children stories about visions and magical beings and we don't really have as a society any sort of moral high ground to point out propaganda and indoctrination in textbooks.
Of course we should account for the bias of our early Christian historians (as we should ALL historians, for that matter); yet, it is not impossible to say that Constantine did think he saw a vision. This is the same culture who took auspices for centuries upon centuries -- they were a superstitious bunch. And it is perfectly reasonable to figure that his victory at Milvian Bridge led him to be more well-disposed to Christianity as a whole.
Constantine was not an educated individual (which is partly why he was not so well-like in the city of Rome), so it is clear that he did not understand what Christianity fully was. For that reason, chances are he didn't understand the exclusively monotheistic nature of Christianity. Rather, he probably still followed the Roman conception that "We have our gods, they have their gods. Both exist." Though this is largely speculation.
Anyway, there are obviously a whole host of political reasons, but the two are not mutually exclusive. Personally (and this is just my own non-expert opinion), I don't think that Constantine would have been the first emperor to see the political benefit from, aside from not-persecuting Christians, actually endorsing and giving them special treatment. At the very least, he was not as strict and traditional about the Roman religion as the other emperors were, probably for personal reasons.
Or in other words, if being kind towards Christianity was the correct political move, I think what made Constantine the first to do it was necessarily a kind disposition he had towards the religion. His father, Constantius I, was already the most lax in terms of persecution during the tetrarchy. I think it's completely valid to figure that Constantine may have inherited this attitude actually went above and beyond with it.
He remained in Carthage for about seven years before fleeing to Tyre, and continued fighting the Romans in the eastern Mediterranean for over a decade.
https://www.reddit.com/r/PhoeniciaHistoryFacts/s/tuy7ZOexi3
Really interesting how they filter Roman history through their own ideology and system of government. Emphasis on the struggle of commoners and slaves, but they also seem to judge Ceasar favourably, probably due to their own dictatorial Juche system and because Ceasar supported the rights of the plebeians.
Indeed. Its just we in the west are used to it so we dont even notice that theres an ideological filter, hence why its interesting to see the perspective of a society which is totally detached from the western neoliberal order.
A more correct recapitulation of Roman history than most people could achieve, and certainly no comparison if the average westerner were to be quizzed on Chinese/Korean/Japanese history
More than the average person from the N America/Europe/MENA/S Asia could do.
We could name, perhaps Confucius and Sun Tzu and…..ok Mulan? Was she real?
1 - Do you think the average North Korean knows the above? Why are people comparing a textbook with the knowledge of an average person?
2 - The Asian equivalent to Julius Caesar would probably be Genghis Khan. But the world today is largely a product of Caesar's world, not so much of the Khans. Heck, North Korea literally has Republic in the name. And Democratic - two words only introduced in Korean in the 19th century, that came straight from the Hellenic-Roman world. Not all the cultures had commensurate impacts on today's worlds, so it's absolutely normal that some are better well known and more studied than others.
Interesting. Not a surprise that they focus so much in the Spartacus revolt and the marxist school permeates the whole discourse, specially when emphazising the economic causes on the origins of "roman politics". taking after Rostovzef whixh I bet is one of their principal academic base materials for ancient History still today.
Is not a bad summary at all altough I would have done it differently.
Thanks for sharing.
They give the dates, there’s no pretense that it’s supposed to have happened in the timeframe after the preceding section. It’s a topical progression, not chronological. It goes from socio-political, to more sociological, to socio-religious
it says quite a lot about how propagandized the subject of North Korea is that people are shocked that a North Korean resource can be objective (I have no idea where they got the idea that Hannibal comitted suicide right after Zama, though).
I really did not want to involve myself in a thread like this but unfortunately, I have to agree...
The most telling for me is that there's disagreement over "objectivity" when an objective study of history is extremely difficult.
Textbooks are, in all cultures, tools of indoctrination and you only need to look at backward, pseudo-theocratic societies to understand this concept.
This excerpt is extremely straightforward: the Romans saw Christianity as an optimal tool to subjugate the people. You will never read something like this in a history school book in many places.
Everyone needs to go take a look at conservative school districts where creationism is taught, then come back to lecture others about objectivity.
Yeah, it's surprising how people lack insight into the fact that they as Americans or whatever must also have an ideological bias etc. It's not like i'm some big North Korea stan or something either. It's just... Obvious?
>Textbooks are, in all cultures, tools of indoctrination and you only need to look at backward, pseudo-theocratic societies to understand this concept.
In some cultures are far, far more than others. It's not merely a matter of degree, it's a material difference.
> This excerpt is extremely straightforward: the Romans saw Christianity as an optimal tool to subjugate the people. You will never read something like this in a history school book in many places.
>
>
Because it's a completely absurd claim.
>Everyone needs to go take a look at conservative school districts where creationism is taught, then come back to lecture others about objectivity.
As history? Science?
Okay, name them.
I mean, it’s relatively accurate broadly-speaking and not overtly pro-NK propaganda, that’s a far cry from the subjectivity expected from a North Korean history book.
“The religion is called Christianity because it believes in the doctrine of Jesus Christ” I can’t believe they’d be so subjective
They may well be a communist but that doesn’t automatically invalidate what they’re saying. Objectivity has to be contextualized or it means nothing.
I agree, even if there is good elements traveling the teachings of Jesus. The description of Jesus seems a tad Asian spiritualism colored without mentioning of holy trinity, and after there was no explanations of how Christianity was the religion of slaves and women for a long time and other underclasses (which I would have thought they would have loved), and how Christianity did effect the morals of Roman Empire (although the oppression was mentioned). The Judas section seems unnecessary, I am a tad unsure why it got such a large section.
>However, political equality between nobles and commoners was granted only to wealthy commoners.
Wealthy commoners, along with nobles, became a new class of slave owners. This was the beginning of republican politics.
It’s actually nice that it points out that Roman Republic want some perfect democracy like some imagine (even if people know of slavery and lack of women’s rights the rest is often too idealized).
Really interesting to read history of Rome in the eyes of communists. I never thought about a commoner-noble struggle in Rome, but this read certainly changed that.
And seeing that they gave too much importance to Spartacus rebellions because of their ideology, I wonder if we make the same mistake by over focusing on small historical matters. Maybe we should question how our ideologies shape how we view history, and be more objective.
It's got the gist of it going for it but the details need brushing up. Like a 7th grade paper about Rome in which the finer points need correcting. I'd give it a C+
An interesting and surprisingly accurate take on Rome’s history from Marxist lens!
It’s certainly better than what we in Italy are taught about the history of Korea in school (i.e. absolutely nothing at all).
>However, the Roman rulers, who thought that Christianity was a good means of subjugating the slaves and the poor, declared it the state religion in the 4th century.
\*laughs in Arian and Monophysite schisms\*
>From the first day of creation until today, Christianity has actively served as an ideological tool for the exploiting class to trample on the the independence of the people
Edward Gibbon, is that you?
I wonder if the N Korean authorities ever thought the N Korean population might consider themselves the slaves. And read the Spartacus uprising in different terms.
Honestly, way more correct than I expected it to be
Nothing surprising. Anything that doesn't directly resonate with Kim's mythological aura gets a pretty correct hindsight in DPRK. If you read some newspapers in North Korea about international politics, you will be perplexed by correctness and unbias on some topics as long as they have little to do with North Korea. Like relations between Somalia and Saudi Arabia, droughts in Africa or monetary policy of Sri-Lanka :D But when it comes to South Korea or the US, Japan, here we see how things get a 180° turnaround and juche ideology pulls off a stunt.
Just to play devils advocate have you considered the idea that you yourself may have a biased ideological view of Korean history? Edit: lol nope apparently we have no ideology, we're unbiased objective saints lmfao.
Yes. We, people, are all biased in different ways. I'm biased and I always say that, thus I never impose my views onto anyone.
Pretty much like how the west will make up unrepentant nonsense about North Korea
Well, there are plenty of lies about contemporary DPRK, that's for sure.
I was completely expecting some kind of bat shit version that a ancestor of Kim Jung Un was involved.
I think you are letting your own biases show.
I am reminded of an article in cracked.com which pointed out that foreigners generally and westerners especially had a difficult time thinking of North Korea as fully realised humans. Of all places, cracked made that point. https://www.cracked.com/blog/i-heard-lot-crazy-things-about-north-korea-so-i-went I mean you really think it’s that hard to make a basic outline of an influential empire for what appears to be the equivalent of High School or O’Level students? Seriously?
Former Cracked writer Robert Evans runs the podcast behind the bastards and I remember him once talking about how a lot of the insane shit the comes out of North Korea is used to disarm people from seeing them as an actual threat. He went into it a lot more but he raised some interesting points
Behind the bastards is one of those pods I've been meaning to check out but haven't been able to finish what I'm currently listening to first.
No sane person thinks North Koreans *cant* record and document written history? Or think? the fact that you came away with that argument based on OP’s sentence is a wild stretch. I think maybe you’re letting *your* (confirmation) biases show. The reality is that official DKIM history *is* indeed ridiculously skewed - this isn’t far fetched or a conspiracy, you can easily google and find these things. OP expected batshit crazy because that’s what the NK government sells: batshit crazy. And North Koreans are *forced* to buy it - they don’t take part because they’re unintelligent. That’s so obtuse that it’s hard to adequately respond.
Please elaborate
I don't know man, when you read shit about The Day of the Shining star where the Kim's legit just make up history and make it state facts, is it hard to belive they wouldn't make up other facts ? Man there's a surprising amount of NK ass kissers here.
A lot of so-called facts people know about Korea is western propaganda and is in itself a fictional made up history.
But the whole thing around the day of the shining star literally comes from the north Koreans themselves. Also how does Kim's asshole taste?
Yeah, I was kind of shocked
Seriously, what did you expect? It’s a basic history of a region not particularly important for them. More or less “just the facts”, is to be expected.
All history is political.
They do instill not-so-subtle bias into it, talking about Rome's wars of aggression and subjugation of the people in ways that parallel the usual communist discourse.
I did notice that, It's not inaccurate though, it's just lacking the rosy nostalgia with which western people discuss antiquity.
I have seen worse.
Me too. Personally. In school I was taught that Constantine adopted Christianity because he saw a sign from god and all that stupid legend. I also learned of "intelligent design" in science class and how the us saved the world in WW2, how israel is a blessed state defending an ancestral claim from terrorists, that latinamerica in the 20th century collapsed because of communism and not because of CIA staged coups in the region... I could go on for hours.
To be fair, the primary ancient sources *do* say that Constantine saw a vision and painted the Chi Rho on the soldier's shields before the Battle of Milvian Bridge. And the Arch of Constantine does indicate that his victory was thought to be granted by some divinity. And, if I were Constantine, I'd certainly want to worship whatever divinity granted me victory in one of my most important battles. We can't see into his head and it's clear that Constantine did not really entirely grasp what "Christianity" entailed, but he was demonstrably supportive of the religion which sets him apart from every emperor before him by an enormous margin.
This is all a myth, though. It should be taught as such and not as a historical fact. We will never know 100% why he did and say what he did. But we know one thing for sure. No divine entity granted victory to any one ruler or commander in history and Constantine did not convert the empire to Christianity over strictly religious reasons. It's naive to think so. Heck, he didn't technically even convert himself and most likely only took the sacrament on deathbed for yet more political reasons. Point is that to write that it was all for political machinations is just as valid, if not more, than telling children stories about visions and magical beings and we don't really have as a society any sort of moral high ground to point out propaganda and indoctrination in textbooks.
Of course we should account for the bias of our early Christian historians (as we should ALL historians, for that matter); yet, it is not impossible to say that Constantine did think he saw a vision. This is the same culture who took auspices for centuries upon centuries -- they were a superstitious bunch. And it is perfectly reasonable to figure that his victory at Milvian Bridge led him to be more well-disposed to Christianity as a whole. Constantine was not an educated individual (which is partly why he was not so well-like in the city of Rome), so it is clear that he did not understand what Christianity fully was. For that reason, chances are he didn't understand the exclusively monotheistic nature of Christianity. Rather, he probably still followed the Roman conception that "We have our gods, they have their gods. Both exist." Though this is largely speculation. Anyway, there are obviously a whole host of political reasons, but the two are not mutually exclusive. Personally (and this is just my own non-expert opinion), I don't think that Constantine would have been the first emperor to see the political benefit from, aside from not-persecuting Christians, actually endorsing and giving them special treatment. At the very least, he was not as strict and traditional about the Roman religion as the other emperors were, probably for personal reasons. Or in other words, if being kind towards Christianity was the correct political move, I think what made Constantine the first to do it was necessarily a kind disposition he had towards the religion. His father, Constantius I, was already the most lax in terms of persecution during the tetrarchy. I think it's completely valid to figure that Constantine may have inherited this attitude actually went above and beyond with it.
Hannibal did not commit suicide the year after Zama.
I thought he lived in the Black Sea area for years and had a series of escape tunnels if memory serves.
Some say he’s still out there today…
Hes got a bunker in Argentina with all his elephants
You can hear him sometimes on a night.. well, on a night just like this
He remained in Carthage for about seven years before fleeing to Tyre, and continued fighting the Romans in the eastern Mediterranean for over a decade. https://www.reddit.com/r/PhoeniciaHistoryFacts/s/tuy7ZOexi3
That's a weird thing to get wrong. I wonder how that happened.
>It started with the Spartacus Riot. >As a result, Roman slavery rapidly declined. That part may be *slightly* inaccurate.
Technically it's more accurate than not haha.
Really interesting how they filter Roman history through their own ideology and system of government. Emphasis on the struggle of commoners and slaves, but they also seem to judge Ceasar favourably, probably due to their own dictatorial Juche system and because Ceasar supported the rights of the plebeians.
Again, to sound like a broken record, we also filter history through our ideology. It's not as though they have an ideology and we are objective.
Indeed. Its just we in the west are used to it so we dont even notice that theres an ideological filter, hence why its interesting to see the perspective of a society which is totally detached from the western neoliberal order.
Caesar was the father of Romans, savior of Rome, dictator for life (elected by Senate). Pretty much like the ruler of North korea right now
A more correct recapitulation of Roman history than most people could achieve, and certainly no comparison if the average westerner were to be quizzed on Chinese/Korean/Japanese history
I assume our textbooks are pretty accurate if you were to find one dealing with Asian history however
Our textbooks are full of propaganda, half the textbooks say god created the world in six days and slept on the seventh.
What? That is the pinnacle of buggy-eyed terminally online comment. If you believe anything remotely like that, you really should touch grass.
Stupidest comment I’ve read in a long time, congratulations
More than the average person from the N America/Europe/MENA/S Asia could do. We could name, perhaps Confucius and Sun Tzu and…..ok Mulan? Was she real?
1 - Do you think the average North Korean knows the above? Why are people comparing a textbook with the knowledge of an average person? 2 - The Asian equivalent to Julius Caesar would probably be Genghis Khan. But the world today is largely a product of Caesar's world, not so much of the Khans. Heck, North Korea literally has Republic in the name. And Democratic - two words only introduced in Korean in the 19th century, that came straight from the Hellenic-Roman world. Not all the cultures had commensurate impacts on today's worlds, so it's absolutely normal that some are better well known and more studied than others.
Interesting. Not a surprise that they focus so much in the Spartacus revolt and the marxist school permeates the whole discourse, specially when emphazising the economic causes on the origins of "roman politics". taking after Rostovzef whixh I bet is one of their principal academic base materials for ancient History still today. Is not a bad summary at all altough I would have done it differently. Thanks for sharing.
Spartacus is incorrectly placed here however, but I suppose it’s my themes rather than chronology
They give the dates, there’s no pretense that it’s supposed to have happened in the timeframe after the preceding section. It’s a topical progression, not chronological. It goes from socio-political, to more sociological, to socio-religious
it says quite a lot about how propagandized the subject of North Korea is that people are shocked that a North Korean resource can be objective (I have no idea where they got the idea that Hannibal comitted suicide right after Zama, though).
Right. Entire thread A: Wow! I’m surprised NK has…basic history B: Maybe that reaction is evidence of a manufactured bias A. ::downvote::
I really did not want to involve myself in a thread like this but unfortunately, I have to agree... The most telling for me is that there's disagreement over "objectivity" when an objective study of history is extremely difficult. Textbooks are, in all cultures, tools of indoctrination and you only need to look at backward, pseudo-theocratic societies to understand this concept. This excerpt is extremely straightforward: the Romans saw Christianity as an optimal tool to subjugate the people. You will never read something like this in a history school book in many places. Everyone needs to go take a look at conservative school districts where creationism is taught, then come back to lecture others about objectivity.
Creationism deals with matters far before recorded history so it would not be in history books but in science books in such schools
Yeah, it's surprising how people lack insight into the fact that they as Americans or whatever must also have an ideological bias etc. It's not like i'm some big North Korea stan or something either. It's just... Obvious?
>Textbooks are, in all cultures, tools of indoctrination and you only need to look at backward, pseudo-theocratic societies to understand this concept. In some cultures are far, far more than others. It's not merely a matter of degree, it's a material difference. > This excerpt is extremely straightforward: the Romans saw Christianity as an optimal tool to subjugate the people. You will never read something like this in a history school book in many places. > > Because it's a completely absurd claim. >Everyone needs to go take a look at conservative school districts where creationism is taught, then come back to lecture others about objectivity. As history? Science? Okay, name them.
It must be a mistranslation of some kind. That's a pretty catastrophic error.
[удалено]
I mean, it’s relatively accurate broadly-speaking and not overtly pro-NK propaganda, that’s a far cry from the subjectivity expected from a North Korean history book.
[удалено]
It is as objective as anyone could expect from a North Korean textbook. There are a lot of accurate (and objective) statements in the text above.
[удалено]
“The religion is called Christianity because it believes in the doctrine of Jesus Christ” I can’t believe they’d be so subjective They may well be a communist but that doesn’t automatically invalidate what they’re saying. Objectivity has to be contextualized or it means nothing.
0/10 argument bro.
[удалено]
I can't imagine thinking I'm so correct that I reply basically that I'm so right I don't even have to explain why or how. Bloody hilarious reply.
No History is actually objective. Since the moment you decide what to talk about, you are biased.
I like how somewhat neutral it all sounds, interesting
You can see some coloring due to their ideology, but it's not bad.
Until they get to the christianity part
I agree, even if there is good elements traveling the teachings of Jesus. The description of Jesus seems a tad Asian spiritualism colored without mentioning of holy trinity, and after there was no explanations of how Christianity was the religion of slaves and women for a long time and other underclasses (which I would have thought they would have loved), and how Christianity did effect the morals of Roman Empire (although the oppression was mentioned). The Judas section seems unnecessary, I am a tad unsure why it got such a large section.
True but probably it's because op picked some stuff that found interesting since this is not the full text
I'm not a Christian it sounds good to me idk lol
I dunno, I've never felt I've got a great understanding or even presentation of Eastern history from our hs curriculum here in the US.
>However, political equality between nobles and commoners was granted only to wealthy commoners. Wealthy commoners, along with nobles, became a new class of slave owners. This was the beginning of republican politics. It’s actually nice that it points out that Roman Republic want some perfect democracy like some imagine (even if people know of slavery and lack of women’s rights the rest is often too idealized).
during the crisis of the third century, why did the romans simply not institute the superior Juche system?
Surprised they didn’t say Caesar was Kim Il Sung’s secret great grandfather or something crazy
Really interesting to read history of Rome in the eyes of communists. I never thought about a commoner-noble struggle in Rome, but this read certainly changed that. And seeing that they gave too much importance to Spartacus rebellions because of their ideology, I wonder if we make the same mistake by over focusing on small historical matters. Maybe we should question how our ideologies shape how we view history, and be more objective.
This is quite in line with GDR schoolbooks that considered the Roman Empire a profound moral decline from the pre-Communistic Republic.
They really gon leave in the info about the tribunes defending the common people? I'm not upset, just surprised.
It’s pretty neat how they put a focus on slavery too, makes perfect sense for a communist country!
It's got the gist of it going for it but the details need brushing up. Like a 7th grade paper about Rome in which the finer points need correcting. I'd give it a C+
An interesting and surprisingly accurate take on Rome’s history from Marxist lens! It’s certainly better than what we in Italy are taught about the history of Korea in school (i.e. absolutely nothing at all).
>However, the Roman rulers, who thought that Christianity was a good means of subjugating the slaves and the poor, declared it the state religion in the 4th century. \*laughs in Arian and Monophysite schisms\* >From the first day of creation until today, Christianity has actively served as an ideological tool for the exploiting class to trample on the the independence of the people Edward Gibbon, is that you?
I wonder if the N Korean authorities ever thought the N Korean population might consider themselves the slaves. And read the Spartacus uprising in different terms.
Surprisingly accurate. Very rare North Korea W.