Thank you for the good natured response, Chris.
I'm not wanting to 'have the last word', as is said but when one talks of 'Russians' or 'Australians' or 'Americans' or any other national group - that does imply 'all', even if not intended to do so. That is why I was pleased to see your last post acknowledge that such was not what you meant but is also why I say that you did refer to 'all', in effect.
All are 'laypeople' unless they are experts in a field. So, most of us are laypeople in most areas even if not in one or two.
Most , if not all, people, of whatever background, age, nationality or status, do not 'decide' or 'choose' the way in which they think or behave for we are all subject to conditioning of many types. Schooling, virtually everywhere, is not about 'education' as is the way it is presented and the way in which most people see it, it is about socialisation. So, just as the Russian 'education' system has socialised people in a particular way, so has that of the UK, USA, Australia, and virtually everywhere else.
The gun culture in the USA, for instance, is not really about the Constitution, even though that permits it. Indeed, there is much informed argument about whether the Founding Fathers meant it in the way it is now portrayed and implemented. However, it is actually a result of socialisation - it has become a social norm.
Socialisation has produced a normal, if not dominant view, of Russia in 'the West' that Russia is needlessly belligerent because no one is interested in invading it. In fact, if one considers matters from the Russian side, it is a reality that they have been invaded multiple times by the west. The Poles invaded at the start of the 17th Century, the Swedes at the start of the I8th, the French at the start of the 19th, and the Germans twice in the 20th. If one considers all wars in which they have been involved between the start of the 19th Century to the end of WWII, the Russians have been fighting in Northern Europe approximately once in every 33 years. So, perhaps that reality has also had a conditioning effect - and one for which, it is surely arguable that other nations have significant responsibility.
I'm not adding this material to restart the discussion at this point but simply to illustrate how the matter at the core of our exchanges is much more complex than is generally acknowledged and probably a majority of views are poorly informed or even completely ignorant of the impact of geographical location, natural barriers, artificially imposed borders, massive forced and voluntary migrations and many other geopolitical factors as contributing to or causing conflict and war between and among nations.
As you say: "History has much to teach but it does't find enough students." I agree. As a long time student and educator myself and someone now well past my '3 score years & 10' I am saddened by what I see as a continual 'dumbing down' of populations, at least in the rich nations with which I'm familiar, though I have no reason to doubt that it is true of many more.
It is a constant frustration to me that humanity has continually displayed an amazing capacity for learning and progressing in science and technology but little if any in the affective domains.
I have many thoughts on why that is so, not least being the continuing loss of liberal arts & humanities courses as our universities, most needy of funds, replace those course with vocational ones that business is willing to subsidise and support.
Take care. Stay safe. I wish you well and sincerely will that a change occurs to cause more students to turn to history and learn what is truly important from the mistakes of the past and present.
