What are the biggest dissonances in views of history between different nations?

YOU GUESS CORRECTLY.

Who qualifies as a hero? Don Porfirio?

Wrong, only UK and its sisters think like this. People elsewhere either like them or don't care.

THERE ARE MANY NATIONAL HEROES, FROM THE TIME OF THE FIRST FOUNDER, HERNÁN CORTÉS, TO OUR TIME; PORFIRIO DÍAZ WAS NOT HERO, BUT HE WAS NOT A VILLAIN EITHER —HE WAS MEDIOCRE.

>... WAS NOT [A] HERO...

The American founding fathers are seen as white supremacists who laid the foundations of contemporary American racism

You niggers should stop worshipping Pablo Escobar and become an American state.
>jajaja
Fucking losers. I am glad you are poor.

The founding fathers are quite admired in France.

Get help.

The Black Legend, product of the dirty Anglo which then spread the lie to the English-speaking world.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Legend

Attached: 3Zg0tMO.jpg (1020x746, 306K)

¿Quién debería pedir ayuda? ¿México?

>In the rest of the world, they are generally written off as greedy charlatans
This sounds like some pretty transparent cope

>>You niggers should stop worshipping Pablo Escobar and become an American state.
What's the point, half the citizenry lives here anyway.

Actually, I take that back, it's more like 30-40% depending on how many illegal immigrants there REALLY are and how many Mexicans identify as "white". Similar story for El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, etc.

Don't post that ridiculous meme the numbers have no relation to reality. Jesus Christ, 63 million Aboriginal Australians! I think the whole population at the time of settlement is estimated at a million or so and then you just slip the people dying through a small pox epidemic into the category of military genocide. How many Britons were even on the continent when that started, maybe a thousand? Can't you think critically? 4 million murdered Maori? Were there in reality more than a few hundred thousand in existence? And they're awesome and doing pretty well for themselves in the anglo system.

It's just a meme by a butthurt Argie or Slav, it isn't meant to be taken seriously

>In the rest of the world, they are generally written off as greedy charlatans and cowards who couldn't pay taxes or fight fair.
As an inhabitant of the rest of the world, that sounds like a pile of cow manure.

You say that but that's exactly how the university in the U.S. behaves conerning the Indian American situation. Just blatant fabrication and every Indian run over by a buffalo died through genocide.

>Let me show you how moral I am by denouncing the unprecedented, world-historical evil our people:
Tbf this is quintessentially anglo-american

Japanese take on ww2 in general is pretty interesting

>world-historical
Hegelians may feel free to exist via the attic window

Basado y Rojoempastillado.

Wtf now I love American Exceptionalism.

The latter does have a lot of evidence for it. I read somewhere that they all had a lot to gain financially from separating from Britain. Land speculation. USA revolution is a very good example. Maybe the best that most people here would readily know.

What actually happened before World War I:
>be French
>dominate the European continent militarily for centuries for absolutely no benevolent or sensible reason
>Germans don't want to get wrecked by something like Napoleon again
>DEUTSCHLAND UNITE
>Franco-Prussian War happens
>France gets righteously, unequivocally, irrevocably wrecked by superior German industrial might and autism
>Germany wins, France loses. >Germany takes Alsace-Lorraine.
>France is absolutely seething for the next 40 years.
>sends diplomats to Russia and UK to create system of alliances
>waits for a war with Germany to happen
>UK and Russia still not enough to beat Germans
This gets glossed over in favor of the "German militarism iz ebil" meme.

>In the rest of the world, they are generally written off as greedy charlatans and cowards who couldn't pay taxes or fight fair.
In my experience, this is not the case. Maybe if you're a nationalistic butthurt Brit, but most non-Americans I've heard talk pretty warmly (but fairly) of the US's founding fathers.

in the end it's true that the whole thing could have been avoided if they'd just had their own Parliament.

There's not much inclination to think that British rule was oppressive or that the colonists hated British people or the idea of a king. Some Founding Fathers were more radical than others it is true but it took some time and a lot of blunders on the part of the Brits to really get it going. Their rule was just starting to become sluggish and alienated from the affairs of America.
>hurr durr don't attack the indians!
>don't take too much land!
>pay more taxes tho
With blatant things like this, it's hard not to see Britain as actively cucking America's development.