I think that this may be a somewhat controversial topic, for reasons that I'll outline below, but I definitely think it warrants some thought. It probably doesn't come as much of a surprise to many that history, the way it is taught in schools around the world, is presented (I daresay even manipulated) in a certain manner to school-children, so as to correspond to the view of the respective nation-state on certain historical events. This official view is usually used to promote certain national interests, whether they be to justify the posession of a certain territory, the policy of a state towards another of its neighbors or the claim to some other territory not within that state's borders. This version of history is the first that people are usually exposed to, and so it is often the bias with which a regular person approaches history. What's more, this history is also reproduced in movies and literature produced in that state, and aimed at adults. The indoctrination is thus maintained throughout a person's life.

I would say that there are definite patterns to this type of history:

1. The creation of great historical national heroes. Often, historical figures from the past, are presented in such a manner as to make them mythical. Their bad traits are omitted, or glossed over, their good traits are exacerbated, and their true motives are often manipulated to suit the nation state's propaganda. Thus we see statements such as "ABC was the first great hero who fought for the nation XYZ", even though ABC lived hundreds of years before XYZ really existed as a nation.

2. The creation of a nemesis. A good hero is not credible unless there is some sort of nemesis. More often than not, that nemesis is not even a person, but a people, a nation, a religion, or an entire civilization; depending on what the interests of the mnodern nation state is. Often, the nemesis gets credited as the source of many of the problems plaguing the nation-state. Thus, statements such as "the Nation XYZ was glorious and the most advanced in the world until the evil MNP came around".

3. Sometimes, great heros transcend national lines and become the great mythical figures of entire civilizations. A good example would be Alexander the Great in the West.

These stories are usually based on some sort of historical truth, but their presentation to the people is really equivalent to the creation of historical myths, based on the truth, but much more romantic and one-sided. Eventually, regular people associate all of history with these romantic mythical figures. I would actually argue that people's general interest in history is usually linked to the existence of these romantic figures. People whose nations have a good number of mythical heroes are often interested in the history of their own country. People whose nations don't have a good deal of such heroes are either not interested in history, or are simply interested in the history revolving around mythical heroes of the civilizational type.

I will actually use AE as an excellent environment that proves this theory. Topics on AE often revolve around mythical figures. Most flame wars occur between members of countries which not only have mythical heroic figures, but especially when these heroic figures happen to be each other's nemesis. We then have a situation where people who have been taught diametrically opposite versions of history in school talk about certain events and discover that the others' version of history is radically different. It is hardly surprising considering the deep bias instilled in these people as children, that they often get emotional and a flame war occurs. It is also hardly surprising that there's so many of these wars, since , according to my theory, it is precisely the people who have biases, who are most interested in history (and thus likely to come on AE), due to the large number of mythical figures in the history taught by their respective nation state.

I will now examine some examples.

A) America. National history as taught in the US, has among other roles the justification of American exceptionalism and the justification of the posession of certain territories. Thus, the American Revolution is not only presented as a moral struggle for freedom (when the primary motives were economic), but George Washington is presented as a larger than life figure (ex. a "great general", when in fact he was rather lousy). The French intervention is minimized and even ignored; the fact that most colonists were loyal to Britain is also glossed over, and so the story revolves largely around the colonists "fighting for freedom" led by the great Washington.  Abraham Lincoln is another example: he is made to appear as "Honest Abe", somebody so morally upright that he couldn't make a moral mistake; and this completely overshadows the fact that the Southern States had a constitional right to seccede. As for the posession of certain territories, one has to look no further than the presentation of the Wild West: gun slinging cowboys fighting against brutal Redskins was and still is, despite recent trends, the archetypal image of the American West. The fact was that the vast majority of western colonists didn't ever own a gun, and the reports of American indians attacking colonists were very rare and wildly exagerrated when they occured. I have personally seen many examples of Americans on AE talking about thir own country's history as exceptional, and of the corresponding historical myths as truth. We also have a relatively large American contingent: often it is immigrants interested in their own country; but we also have many second (or older) generation Americans, interested in American history.

B) Turkey. Perhaps nowhere else in the world is history more important as a tool for the nation state as here. We must remember that after WW1, Turkey lost not only its status as a multinational empire, but also its Islamic tradition was discarded. Nationalism thus was essential for providing an identity to its people, and history played an important part. Great mythical heroic figures such as Alp-Arslan, Bayazid, Mehmet, Suleyman and of course Ataturk were glorified and made central to the Turkish identity. The Turks were presented as the bravest of people, creating the largest empire in history (the Ottoman Empire, with little regard for actual facts), and treating other populations very fairly. This mythic version of their own history has made the Turks very passionate about their own history, as evidenced by the disproportionately large number of Turkish forumers. However, according to the rules of "the game", the creation of a national mythical history also implied the glossing over of such topics as the Armenian genocide, the history of the Kurds and the treatment of Balkan peoples. Imagine the shock of Turkish forumers coming into contact with members from Balkan countries, or Armenians, whose own national histories hads the Turks as their nemesis! All of a sudden, that idyllic version of Turkish history was confronted by diametrically opposed national histories. I've seen quite often comments of Turks completely mystified by the general hostility of other forumers (whose national histories usually presented the Turks as the nemesis and often as the root cause of all the problems in their own country). Thus, we also have a disproportionate amount of flame wars involvign Turks and other nations.

C) Canada. This is an example of history not being much manipulated (for pragmatic reasons). Canada has a policy of multiculturalism, and an uneasy situation whereby a large French enclave is sandwiched between 2 English speaking regions. What's more, its only neighbor is the most poweful country in the world, and Canada has no interest in being antagonistic against the US. The creation of mythical figures is very dangerous, because it would also imply the creation of a nemesis. Since most of Canada's history from which such heroes could be drawn (the Seven Years War, the War of 1812, the two World Wars), is linked either with the conflict between the French and the English, either with the conflict with the US, or conflict with countries from which large parts of the population may come (for the world wars), national mythical heroes are conspicously absent from Canadian history. Thus popular Canadian interest in history is very low. We have a large number of Canadian forumers, that is true (probably due to the availablity of the internet in Canada), but there are very very few topics on Canadian history that are opened. Canadians who are interested in history are interested in civilizational heroes, or in the heroes of the countries of their immigrant background.

Please note that I will not acknowledge any virulent attacks on my presentation of any of the examples I have given. If anything, is some forumer disagrees too much with my assesment of their history, I will actually take it as proof of my theory, as being indoctrinated by their respective national myths.

Great post Decebal, very clear and smart writing.

Of course, the idea of the creation of national myths is central to the thesis of Benedict Anderson's "Imagined Communities". As a matter of fact, it is not simply the homogenization of the curriculum and the teaching of history that helps to create these national myths, hence boosting the idea of a "national identity" that does not really exist. Anderson shrewdly points out three other institutions of power which eventually help to shape the way in which states imagine its dominion - the census, the map, and the museum. These three institutions correspond flawlessly to the nature of the human beings a state rules, the geography of its domain, and the legitimacy of its ancestry.

......Mentioning Winston Churchill brings me neatly to Point 1 concerning “the creation of great historical national heroes”. Once again, I think this is a valid point and I can relate to this from personal experience. Here I will readily admit that Britain’s ‘historical heroes’ have more often than not, been elevated way beyond the actual truth. (Although once again, historical revisionism of these ‘heroes’ takes place on a regular basis in the UK). For me personally, as a young boy I was taken by the images and exploits of people such as Winston Churchill, Richard the Lionheart, Oliver Cromwell, Elizabeth I, Douglas Bader, Harold Godwinson, and Boudicea, although I was equally taken by such figures as Genghis Khan, Erwin Rommel, Abraham Lincoln, Saladin, and Bonaparte. I remember being greatly influenced by my perceptions of these people, and those perceptions were shaped by pictures and stories presented in book form. I was also lucky enough to be taken on visits to historical sites where I could physically ‘feel’ the presence of history; and it is THIS ‘feeling’ point, I believe, what developed into a my passion for history in general. At secondary school, I cannot, with hand on my heart, remember one thing I was taught in class about history. I actually hated my history lessons, but this did not detract from my extra-curricular historical activities and interest!!! However, although I still retain a good degree of interest in these characters, my historical knowledge concerning them has changed over the years as I have become more aware, more enquiring and more open-minded to other points of view, In particular, after I gained my BA in History. This does not make them any more ‘lesser’ in my eyes, indeed, knowing the full picture actually develops my interest even further. I can still make a good argument why these ‘heroes’ should be notable and positive figures from the past, but I am equally prepared to see that for some, my ‘heroes’ would be vilified.

..........I would like to think I have provided a ‘case’ that relates to what Decebal has been saying, but it is highly subjective and from my own country’s perspective. Ultimately, I really do think that the issues raised in Decebal’s post primarily concerns the provision of education in a particular country at a particular time. I would tend to think that education differs from one country to another and until full freedom of research is available to all, until a reasonable and stable form of ‘democracy’ can be founded everywhere, then such historical bias and distortions will always exist. Of course, I full realise that ‘true’ democracy will probably never be achieved, most likely cannot be achieved, and that this is an ideal vision. However, just like the role of professional and well-educated historical research, the aim should be to reach the best, most-well informed presentation possible, be it politics or a history book.

I could have spent a full month making a comprehensive analysis of every country that I can think of, and then write a post which is so long that no one would read it. Instead I opted for showing 3 quick examples, which as Komnenos noted, I specifically marked as examples. Not only that, but had you read the 3 examples, you would have noted that they are not actually similar. For instance, I remarked that myths in Canadian history are very few due to the particular interests of that country and that the corresponding level of popular interest in history is very low; while Turkey was an example of exactly the opposite. I did not write these examples to assign any "blame", but rather to describe the various ways in which this phenomenon varies around the world. How exactly is this a "pathetic slur"? Is it not possible that your post is precisely an example of the sensitivity that people from a given country, used to a certain kind of national history, have when confronted with different interpretations of the same history? Is it not possible therefore that your post is a confirmation of what I wrote?

There is not a single person in this thread, or on Earth for that matter, who can say that he or she knows the one and only True History of all "histories". If anyone claims to know the truth, he or she just simply wishes he or she is correct.

Without want to flame the topic and make it one more greco-turkish conflict i would like to add that is not fault of the Greek state today's Turkey nationalism .In Greece nationalism is expelled in the contrary in Turkey is in the apogee, as I can conclude from the international press and opinions of the fellow Turkish forumers.

Excellent Post Decebal! You have brought up some issues on AE that I thought gravely needed adressing and have done it in a most excellent manner!

I feel that too many people will approach the complex study of history without first reading anything about Historology (the philosphy of history) or reading any of the first historians who speak a great deal about the aims and the subject of history. People need to understand that history is not just the systematic accumilation of historical fact, but also the application of historical method to that fact. It is that historical method that people need to understand, and nationalism is one of the greatest enemies of this method.

We in England seem, quite suspiciously, to chiefly (at least in GCSE and prior) study non-English areas of history, many of which show the English in a position of moral superiority, NATO against the Warsaw pact or the Allies against the Axis in WWII. This clearly shows some kind of way of avoiding our less than friendly past, as we almost completely leave anything to do with the 1700s-1800s out of the sylabus. We need to confront our past as imperialists in order to understand it and ensure that we can make sure that it is not practiced by my country again

I came across the following quote, which is very sobering.

I like the word "mythistory".