Why some parts of History are always kept in the dark ? As an history teacher in a very "urban" (hmm) region of Paris...

>More importantly, he was secretly a Christian, way before Constantin.

Are you really a history teacher? Think about what you have just said. Is it likely that a 3rd century emperor could be a 'secret' Christian? If he WAS a Christian as Eusebius and other later Christian writers say, then why did this truth only emerge in the 4th century, and only in the works of Christian authors?

I suspect that if you ever did study history, you studied at a terrible university and your understanding of the historical method is deeply flawed. Stay French.

>With the growth of scholarly criticism in the 17th and 18th centuries, fewer historians believed Philip to be a Christian. Historians had become increasingly aware of secular texts, which did not describe Philip as a Christian—and which, indeed, recorded him participating as pontifex maximus (chief priest) over the millennial Secular Games in 248. Modern scholars are divided on the issue. Some, like Hans Pohlsander and Ernst Stein, argue that the ecclesiastic narratives are ambiguous, based on oral rumor, and do not vouch for a Christian Philip; others, like John York, Irfan Shahîd, and Warwick Ball, argue that the ecclesiastic narratives are clear and dependable enough that Philip can be described as a Christian; still others, like Glen Bowersock, argue that the sources are strong enough to describe Philip as a man interested in and sympathetic to Christianity, but not strong enough to call him a Christian.

Source?

So Arabs only care about history if it has Arabs in it? Hmm they seem kinda racist don't you thin

You mean the same way any other people, because every education system focuses on the national and local history over world history?

Except white people who go to great lengths to study other people's histories.

Except they are only mentioned in passing, and ""white people"" (as if all of them study the same thing) still focus on the national and regional way more than on remote events.

Indian or Chinese or Russian history isnt studied much outside these countries.

Please. Western universities dedicate entire departments to everything in your post.

And Philip the Arab wasn't what we would consider arab these days.

Moving the goalpost, we are clearly discussing lower level education.

Also,
1. All universities worldwide do.
2. Most people don't study history in a university.

I'm pretty sure he was called something else. But good job on getting your students interested in history nonetheless.

A lot of the awesome stuff in history does not fit into what people need to know in order to live/not question the fucktards in power. Shit like "driveby plane shootings by crazy brits in the African Desert" and "Davy Crockett and Andrew Jackson teamed up to beat up an assassin despite hating each other's politics" are hard to fit into contemporary education to begin with, even if it is true and more badass than "GEORGE WASHINGTON CHOPPED A CHERRY TREE DOWN" (that shit never happened) or "King John totally signed the Magna Carta" (they didn't even follow it the first time round, and had to be reissued by... WILLIAM MARSHAL, THE KINGHTLIEST KNIGHT WHO EVER KNIGHTED, UNHORSER OF RICHARD THE THIRD AND PROTECTOR OF CORGIS. Also he was regent to Henry III when he did that.)

The steppes are pretty fuckin' cold at night.

Elementary/High schools in Europe, at least my country, focus on non-western history as well and the main bulk isn't even about my country.

>focus on
That is a very generous way to say "mention". I have no idea why you'd lie, do you think there are no westerners on Veeky Forums other than you?
All history classes are our history first, the history of our region second, and all other history third. This results in events that didn't directly relate to our country being ignored, unless they had colossal consequences.

For example, the history of Persia is only studied as far as it relates to Greece, and the huge history of China is covered in at most 2 classes. Korea is largely ignored, so is Russia other than its wars with the west. India is only mentioned as a footnote in the very early history, and then when the Greeks go there, again when the Mongols go there, and again when the British go there.

There is too much of history, and history is too irrelevant to the modern person, and as a result very little of it is thought, mostly whatever creates nationalistic feelings in the child (so local stuff).

My secondary school histoey education focused on the development of civilization in Asia and India, then modern world history from 1900 to after the Cold War. I only remembered the modern world history part because my history teacher made me super interested in history by playing that Boney M song about Rasputin.

>focused
There is that word again. How many history classes you had in that year, 40-50?
How many of them were dedicated to Asia and India, 3-4?
This isnt "focused". This is "mentioning". They were mentioned. They are mentioned everywhere.

>The steppes are pretty fuckin' cold at night.

The best way to combat hypothermia is skin to skin contact (no homo spooning).

Or to wear a whole fucking cow, like they did.

Wuz

You don't seem to get the point. History is NOT White vs Others. It's not the glorious march of white people doing everything good while others are oogabooga in their huts, like /pol/ would like you to believe.

Problem is, muslims are convinced this is what we teach and they tell their children to not listen in History class.

>Is it likely that a 3rd century emperor could be a 'secret' Christian? I
Yes it's likely. Christianity was in rome since 60AD and romans persecuted them more or less depending of the emperor in power. Philip stopped all persecutions and Syria being so close to Palestine, it's not a big leap to say is sympathy for Christianity could be a secret conversion. Secret because at the time the romans were not ready to accept a christian emperor and the christians were not numerous enough yet.

>the first mention of him being christian only shows up a hundred years after he dies, in a pro-christian book during a pro-christian period

Hmmmmmmm.....

Sure it's suspicious but it doesn't mean it can't be true. The fact is he was sympathic to Christians. That's already a huge step from Nero.

It can be true, just like it can be true that he was secretly an atheist, or secretly a woman.

>They took interest and wanted to know how a guy from Syria can actually rule a gigantic "european" empire. Sure /pol/ wouldn't approve but this is how you make people think and break the stupid idea of History being White vs The World.

What are you smoking? They still saw it as them versus Whites. They were just excited that one of them was ruling over Whites.

The joke being that this whole thread is "the whites" seeing it as "us versus the muslims".

Italian here, we did 0 not western history.

No wait, we did ancient egypt and Fertile Crescent

Which is western history too

Not western enough to be worth more than a mention in 1 or at most 2 classes.

In France we have a chapter about Han dynasty in China or Guupta in India; we also have something on Malian or Songhai empire

Except Muslim isn't a race, you tremendous dumbass.

You can also talk about the Syrian Emperors, such as poor Alexander Severus, who would have been a brilliant emperor, were it not for his assassination.

Thats a good observation, but it has nothing to do with the post, or what it suggests.

That's pretty fucking disgusting.

Is the whole "Middle Easterners and Europeans Look different" meme a recent thing
Untill very recently most Western artists potrayed Middle Easterners as the same as Europeans

what's there to discuss? user made a very superfluous assumption on OP's statements. Not once did he condemn all muslims as ignorant, just those in his experience as a teacher.

This really isn't complex stuff.

>Problem is, muslims are convinced this is what we teach and they tell their children to not listen in History class.
Right, so you should focus on correcting their fucking misconceptions instead of not teaching the rest of your students about white Emperors. You are literally the problem.

>"urban" (hmm) region of Paris
>deal with many muslims who constantly resent History
>because their stupid-ass Imam told them Islam always existed
>Sure /pol/ wouldn't approve but this is how you make people think
>break the stupid idea of History being White vs The World

If you've been here more than 2 days you can spot the obvious, eye gouging message of this post.

>white Emperors
Or Emperors at all, honestly, the wrong way to teach history is to make people memorize the names of kings and military campaigns. I'm sure I would have hated taking your class.

Philip can hardly be considered one of history's victors, and yet no source contemporary with his life and reign disparages him by suggesting he was a Christian. If it was the sort of open secret that it would have had to have been for somebody like Eusebius to know about it later (assuming for the sake of argument that the tradition is genuine) then it would be unbelievable that his detractors would not have used it against him.

His middle eastern origins no doubt meant that he was considerably more sensitive to the effects of religious persecutions and the need for tolerance, but it is very far from being evidence that he was himself a Christian.

The idea implicit in your post, that Rome was 'ready' for a Christian emperor in the second decade of the 4th century is fallacious. The VAST, overwhelming majority of the empire's population were still 'pagans' of one shade or another, including amongst the ruling class. It is only with Constantine's conversion, and more importantly, military success, that the initiative shifts to Christianity. It is demonstrably the case that the number of Christians began to grow because a militarily successful Christian emperor had come to the throne and provided a favourable environment for growth of the faith, rather than that Constantine's 'conversion' came about because Christian's had become an important enough force in the empire to warrant a move to their side.

>Sure /pol/ wouldn't approve
So? Don't for 1 second even consider those retards opinions.

>Shittius Alexander
>Utterly cucked by Persia and then some savages from Barbaricum
>Attached to his mother's teats into adulthood
>Brilliant emperor

Don't make me lel.

>His middle eastern origins no doubt meant that he was considerably more sensitive to the effects of religious persecutions and the need for tolerance,
Do you believe that?

I really hope you're not a history teacher. You sound like a complete idiot. I'm glad my history teachers didn't go on some imageboard and discuss whether or not a historical figure was a 'cuck'.

Don't you see that by teaching them about Philip the Arab, a minor emperor in the grand scheme of things that happened to be from the Near East, it's you that's pandering?

Wasn't Eastern Mediterranean greatly syncretised due to Hellenism and the only ones persecuted were Christians at the hands of Rome? If anything you'd think oriental perspective would make one even more opposed to Jews and Christians as they were not part of the happy family that was polytheistic pantheons and syncretised cults.

Does it annoy anybody else that white people think that Romans were white ?

Does it annoy anyone else when racists can't distinguish between their own categories, like you're failing to do right now?
Romans were Mediterraneans, not Nords. They were still white.

>Mediterraneans
Mediterraneans were not / are not white. They are European but not white. The average Roman had dark features, dark skin tone dark eyes / hair. White people, as in celtic / germanic / slavic people just like to think that they are descendants of Romans because they like to take credit for their achievements / historical status.

>Who ? I'm sure 90% of you never heard about it.

Maybe they just don't like you or history from the start because you're a condescending smarmy bastard, OP.

Why do brown and black people have such an inferiority complex...My god im so sick of it..
Cant they be a bit more like the yellows?

Yes I do. The middle east was a religious melting pot of poly, mono and henotheisms. Given the troubled history of the area when it came to attempts to instil religious syncretism in a space where polytheism met MONO, not just henotheisms (Abomination of Desolation, The Hasmonean Wars, Great Revolt, Kitos War, Bar Kochba Revolt etc.) it is very likely that anybody that had grown up in the province would understand that more could be achieved when there was give and take and accommodation, regardless of their own religious convictions.

Somebody like Philip would know that pragmatic realism would trump persecutions which were usually carried out by emperors more distant geographically from the results of those persecutions on the ground.

You must remember the inherent localism in contemporary worldview and concerns (see Septimius Severus' concern for Lepcis Magna even after he had become emperor). I'd argue an 'oriental perspective' would be one that realised that the only way to have a 'happy family' of cults and religions was tolerance. It would ensure the taxes rolled in, would win hearts and minds and prevent, in a particularly restive area, the disruption of trade, the expense of troop mobilization and deployment and greater stability in an area that bordered the empire's most dangerous neighbour.

Commie shit.

>White people, as in celtic / germanic / slavic people
I see.
>it is very likely that anybody that had grown up in the province would understand that more could be achieved when there was give and take and accommodation, regardless of their own religious convictions.
But why?
> I'd argue an 'oriental perspective' would be one that realised that the only way to have a 'happy family' of cults and religions was tolerance
But why?
>t would ensure the taxes rolled in, would win hearts and minds and prevent, in a particularly restive area, the disruption of trade, the expense of troop mobilization and deployment and greater stability in an area that bordered the empire's most dangerous neighbour.
You sound like a neoconservative, desu
Do you honestly think that someone has to be a Communist to have an opinion like that?

>The average Roman had dark features, dark skin tone dark eyes / hair

Does this look like a nigger to you?

>Slavic
SCRATCH

A

RUSSIAN

FIND

A

TATAR

Yes.

We wuz romans n shit

"The dating of the Prima Porta piece is widely contested. It is thought to be a copy of a bronze original."

>It is thought to be a copy of a bronze original.

Just like white people.

>Mussies interested in how to take over Europe

Color me surprised

Time to throw a bit of al andulas on to the curiculim

Here

Why? Think about it for a second. You're clearly responding in a wilfully petulant manner.

A provincial of any intelligence would realise that doing your utmost to accommodate those of different religious persuasions around you would make your life, in the immediate sense, easier.

Accommodation does not mean liking, or thinking to yourself live and let live. You can hate their guts but come to the rational decision that to spill those feelings out and to enact violence because of them is at the very least going to lead to some petty 'eye for an eye' manoeuvrings on the local political scene and at worst an escalation that sees the imperial hammer come down on you and your community.

Do you have any coherent thoughts of your own on the matter that could disprove this? I doubt it.

>assuming people don'tdon't know their cottc

Witty retort, have any proof for your side? Voltaire tier, sayings don't account for anything here.

>A provincial of any intelligence would realise that doing your utmost to accommodate those of different religious persuasions around you would make your life, in the immediate sense, easier.
I ask again why you think this is true. You're making psychological claims about people you know nothing about and acting as if they're uncontestable. I just don't understand why you think Middle-Easterners are all tolerant of religions they don't follow. How about you think about it for a second?
>Accommodation does not mean liking, or thinking to yourself live and let live. You can hate their guts but come to the rational decision that to spill those feelings out and to enact violence because of them is at the very least going to lead to some petty 'eye for an eye' manoeuvrings on the local political scene and at worst an escalation that sees the imperial hammer come down on you and your community.
I honestly don't understand the point you're trying to make here. This is a very poorly articulated proposition.
>Do you have any coherent thoughts of your own on the matter that could disprove this? I doubt it.
I don't need to disprove anything, you've presented your assertions as self-evident truths without giving good reasons to think that that's what they are.

retard

>white means whatever white people want it to mean

>history teacher

THIS JUST IN. STUDENTS TAKING CLASS ARE IGNORANT ABOUT THE TOPIC. RETARD BLAMES ISLAM.

>told them Islam always existed

The teachings in Islam state that all monotheistic teachings in the history of mankind are Islamic. "Muslim" as a term has historically been more like the term "Enlightened". it means "One who Submits", the implication being "to God." The idea of being a "Muslim" is admitting you are a slave to God. Whereas the contrary would be someone who denies their actions/thoughts/feelings/life are the will of God would be considered deluded, because if God exists, God is everything, and controls everything.

I could get into the whole section of Islamic thought, history, and philosophy which YOU are obviously in the dark about, because, being a Frenchy, all you know about is the history of France, because Frenchies are the most radically nationalistic people on earth, and keep themselves in the dark about all non-French things.

A vast majority of Muslims know the year the Prophet migrated to Medina. The Islamic Calendar is only in the 1400s. They know the Prophet Muhammad was the last prophet, they know Jesus and Moses and Abraham were earlier.

I bet you just had one Muslim student in one of your classes surprised to hear Muhammad's life was recent because he's busy being a teenager or some shit, and you are being a dramatic Frenchy about it.

ALSO

>He was from Syria

Syrians aren't Arabic. They did not speak Arabic. Arabs are people from the Arabian Peninsula. Syrians speak Arabic, much like how Americans speak English, but we don't call Obama "Obama the English". He was called "The Arab" by the Romans because the Romans named the province that he was born in "The Arab Province", even though the Arab ethnic group was further south and east. Just like the roman province of Africa doesn't encompass all of Africa (it was basically Algeria).

Man, what kind of history teacher are you?

>I bet you just had one Muslim student in one of your classes surprised to hear Muhammad's life was recent because he's busy being a teenager or some shit, and you are being a dramatic Frenchy about it.
Numerous kids going all rustled when we're talking about Judaism and they asked what "muslims" did at that time. Kids refusing to write "Abraham" but "Ibrahim", "Jesus" becoming "Isa", I think you don't realise the problem.

And again, I'm not talking about what scholar muslims ACTUALLY believe, i'm talking about what the kids THINK Islam is. So in their head (like 2 or 3 per class), Islam always existed and chronology is a lie by sheitan (i'm not exagerating). Of course I'm correcting them but it doesn't work.

Now "Philip the Arab" was obviously not the ethnic arab we can imagine with the name, but he was from the Middle-East, not a native from Rome and that alone was perfect to show the kids how Rome actually worked, it's just an exemple to explain how the Empire became larger than just Rome and was managed by all sorts of people, leading to Caracala reforms, etc... We're not talking about Philip for the heck of it, it's just a hook. (They also like Septime Severe because he was from "Maghred", I'm not sure how useful it would be to shout "HE WAS WHIIIIIIITE !" in front of 11 years old kids).

You honestly need to correct their misconceptions. You're an educator, right? Tell them their Imams are lying to them.

What the fug? I'm Turkish and Islam being "the last religion" is one of the first things they tell you.

I'm not sure if OP is telling the whole story here

CAESAR

>You honestly need to correct their misconceptions.
I correct historical misconceptions, I don't teach what they are supposed to believe in their religion, even if they are WRONG about their own religion. I'm not an Imam.

> Tell them their Imams are lying to them
First it's the best way to get fired. Better than diddling the kids. Also it's not that their Imam is wrong... but extremely cryptic and impossible to understand for kids. So they get everything wrong and start believing in bullshit not even supported by their religion. Good luck going against a religious belief.

I am. You have to understand Islam isn't a unified religion. Hell, even Turks are not taught the same things. Around my place, they tends to call "Islam" all the Abrahamic religions and don't really take the time to explain the difference.

No, Muslims consider Islam to have been mankind's original religion. They do all kinds of mental gymnastics saying that Abraham and Jesus were Muslims, but that when Mohammed came along the true Muslims followed him while those who didn't stopped being Muslims.

It's why they often talk about "reverting" to Islam rather than "converting".

>I don't teach what they are supposed to believe in their religion, even if they are WRONG about their own religion.
I'm not telling you to teach them about what Islam teaches, I'm telling you to try harder to show them facts and truth. You shouldn't just say 'SEE? ARABS CAN RULE EUROPE, TOO!' and pat yourself on the back for making these people interested for a couple days.
>Also it's not that their Imam is wrong... but extremely cryptic and impossible to understand for kids
But Islam is a bunch of lies

you know all those white classical greek and roman statues and busts? they were actually painted back in the day, and it turns out that we can still tell from the traces of pigments that remain on the statues what colors they were painted. Painted plaster reconstructions have been created. Pic related, ancient romans and greeks were alot whiter then their modern counterparts

I might ass you fall for the very common mistake to think of religion as a unified thing. It's not, especially Islam. Even in Christianity, some people tends to practice and understand their religion so wrong, it's almost the opposite of what they are supposed to do. How many old ladies have prayed to some obscur saints in order to find their lost keys or get cured from joints pain ? That's highly heretical yet they see themselves as pure christians. That's the same for Islam.

This OP. You ought to tell those students that syrians back in the day sure as fuck didnt look like them. Especially considering your students are probably north african

You're too paranoid, you're jumping at nonexistent dog whistles.
It's just an imageboard, try to remember

>Kids refusing to write "Abraham" but "Ibrahim"

OH MY GOD WHAT A TRAGEDY

>"Jesus" becoming "Isa"

That's how they actually pronounced Jesus' name during his life. It was close to the Arabic pronunciation. This is a perfect example of white people being petty about dumb shit.

>I think you don't realise the problem.

I do, in that the problem exists in your head because you have this "Muh culture" bullshit going on. I'm an American born Muslim who's family came from greater-Syria (Lebanon), who's majored in Middle East and Islamic history and am currently pursuing a master's in it. The actual problem is European Nationalists over-reacting to names spelled differently (aka correctly).

>So in their head (like 2 or 3 per class), Islam always existed and chronology is a lie by sheitan

Yes, their uneducated, illiterate parents told them something. It's your job to teach them the difference between the IDEA of Islam that says all old and new testament prophets are said to be from the same God, and the "faction" of Islam that they currently believe exists today.

You are right that Muslims are some of the most ignorant people about their own history, but that's your job to fix. And you have already proven to know little about the history of Islam.

>Of course I'm correcting them but it doesn't work.

It does work. I was the same way. Many people are the same way (My religion/country/race/people are always right and never do wrong!). You planted the seeds of curiosity. That's all you can do.

Their Imams are not lying. Their Imams are mistaken. Imams/Sheiks in the US reach out to educators (as Muslims in the US have been here for a few generations, and have formed ties with educators in colleges and such), and educators need to reach out to them as well. Imams study the Quran as a text, and philosophy, not history (which is bad because the Quran stresses the study of Math, medicine and History).

>'SEE? ARABS CAN RULE EUROPE, TOO!
That's absolutly not what I'm saying. It's an exemple for "See ? Rome wasn't just a bunch of italian faggots doing italian things, it's your history too". And sure it's not ethnically correct but the simple fact we're talking about their origin country is making them feel better. I battle them everyday to make them realise FRANCE is their origin country but that just doesn't work.

It doesn't sound like it breaks history being "white vs the world" more like haha we got them that time.

we wuz legionz n shit mane

>"See ? Rome wasn't just a bunch of italian faggots doing italian things, it's your history too".
lol how is that their history, though? Your claim is that you're fighting a narrative according to which it's the white man vs. the world. You're failing to do that.
>I battle them everyday to make them realise FRANCE is their origin country but that just doesn't work.
Maybe because they're not really French, even if they were born in France, and are being raised to destroy French culture, and have no interest in identifying as anything but a member of the Ummah.

>some of the most ignorant people about their own history, but that's your job to fix
I won't teach religion and beliefs, ever. I teach History. We have a whole chapter about Islam's birth and islamic civilization but, guess what, it's AFTER the chapter about Judaism and the one about Christianity. Yet they can't wait and keep asking questions about Islam.

> You planted the seeds of curiosity. That's all you can do.
That's my goal.

They very much looked the same. Syrians have always been a mix of European, Asian, and African peoples. The Silk road and the vast amount of Mediterranean ports, as well as the trade routes going from the Red Sea up toward the eastern Roman Empire.

Syria, for all of human history, has been a huge mixing ground. Most syrians are very light skinned, many have light hair and eyes. they look more Greek than anything, due to Greek settlers moving into the region for a while, and this was encouraged during the Roman/Byzantine eras.

>lol how is that their history, though?
Rome is mediteranean history. They are mediteranean. It's like saying Rome isn't French history because Franks came AFTER the fall.

> have no interest in identifying as anything but a member of the Ummah
Well, don't you think it's a problem that should be adressed ?

>I won't teach religion and beliefs, ever. I teach History.
What don't you fucking understand about the fact that their Imams are lying to them about history and not just deceiving them about the content of Islam, which you obviously don't know very much about? They might be completely correct about their religion and completely wrong about everything factual connected to the history of Islam. Your job is to correct their misunderstandings about history, and you're failing to do that.

You are either clueless or trying to distance yourself from your other personality.
Whichever, seek help.

>ignorant people about their own history
>their own history
>history

Religion is a part of history. Teach the history of it. You don't know the history of Islam, and you should. Europeans and Americans literally consider Islamic history as a whole different thing, even though it's very interwoven in European and Christian history. Egyptian and Syrians are basically the same people as French/Spanish/Italian/Greeks except Muslim.

It's not about teaching religion. It's about teaching the history of the people who happen to be that religion.

Or maybe you should take a break from stalking /pol/ all day, seeing as you're seeing patterns in nothing

>Rome is mediteranean history. They are mediteranean.
Roman history is Greek history, too, I guess, and when we're talking about Philip II I guess we should compare him to Philip the Arab, because they both have something to do with the Mediterranean.
>Well, don't you think it's a problem that should be adressed ?
I do think it's a problem, and I don't think what you're doing is addressing it. You're in denial about what Islam is. It isn't a religion that cares about the facts relating to the histories of the places it's practiced in. Neither is any other religion. You are dealing with indoctrinated fanatics, they just don't have weapons and don't seem to be prone to violence. Unless you can convince them to put aside their religious beliefs, you won't be able to make them think of themselves as French first and foremost. It's obvious that you don't realize there's a contradiction between identity as a Muslim in the Ummah and identity as a Frenchman under the French state. This is something you need to take care of on your own time.

>It's like saying Rome isn't French history because Franks came AFTER the fall.
Are you telling me that you teach classes about Louis XIV and Julius Caesar at the same time and in reference to each other for the sake of mutual reinforcement of lessons? That doesn't make much more sense than what you're doing here.
Honestly, you should study Islam a bit.