​This is a longer version of something I recently wrote for my school's website.
AI Is a Tool for Historical Thinking—And We Need to Wake Up to How Poorly We Are Teaching HistoryOver the past few decades, governments and policymakers have poured funding and resources into STEM education, often at the expense of other fields. The rationale is clear: scientific and technological advancements drive economic growth, innovation, and national security. Yet, in this rush to prioritise STEM, we have largely ignored the fact that many of the most pressing crises of our time—misinformation, the erosion of democratic discourse, and declining reading comprehension—fall squarely within the remit of history and its sister disciplines.
The irony is that while society scrambles to combat "fake news" and historical distortions, history as a discipline is still being taught in a manner better suited to the 1950s: rote memorisation of dates, names, and simplistic cause-and-effect narratives. Historiography, epistemology, and the complex interconnections between past and present remain marginalised in mainstream curricula. This failure has profound consequences—not just for our ability to make sense of the world but for the survival of democratic societies that depend on an informed and critically engaged citizenry.
The AI Panic and the Calculator ParallelEnter artificial intelligence. Many in the humanities, particularly in history education, have reacted to AI with a mix of panic and hostility, seeing it as a threat rather than a tool. The fear is that AI will erode historical thinking, reduce engagement, and encourage students to simply outsource their learning to machines. However, AI has the potential to do for history what the handheld calculator did for mathematics.
When calculators were first introduced into classrooms, they were met with fierce resistance. Critics argued they would "destroy" students' ability to perform basic calculations, just as some now claim AI will "destroy" historical thinking. Yet, over time, calculators proved invaluable in shifting maths education towards higher-order thinking. Research from the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) has demonstrated that students who use calculators effectively develop better problem-solving skills and mathematical reasoning. Moreover, studies found that students who were allowed to use calculators on standardised tests outperformed their peers in complex problem-solving tasks.
Despite these clear benefits, early opposition to calculators was rooted in fears that students would become overly reliant on technology and fail to learn basic arithmetic. These concerns, now largely outdated, mirror the current alarmism surrounding AI. The argument that AI will prevent students from learning proper historical analysis is as shortsighted as claiming that calculators would make maths students incapable of performing mental calculations. In reality, the introduction of calculators led to a paradigm shift, allowing students to focus on algebraic reasoning, statistics, and calculus rather than being bogged down by endless computations. AI offers the same opportunity for history, liberating students from rote memorisation and enabling deeper engagement with historiography, source analysis, and argument construction.
The Double Standard: AI in STEM vs. AI in HumanitiesThe reluctance to embrace AI in history education is particularly ironic when contrasted with its widespread adoption in STEM fields. In medicine, AI is now being used to analyse complex datasets, diagnose diseases, and even predict potential outbreaks. In engineering, AI assists in design modelling, automation, and efficiency improvements. In mathematics, AI-driven platforms help students grasp complex calculus and statistical models more effectively than traditional instruction alone.
So why is history education still clinging to outdated methods? The problem is not that AI lacks applications in the humanities, but that there is a deep-seated bias in how educational innovation is prioritised. History, despite being foundational to democratic societies and critical thinking, is often treated as a secondary concern, its pedagogical advances lagging decades behind those in STEM disciplines.
Expanding Global AI Integration EffortsAI is increasingly being integrated into educational frameworks worldwide, with promising results. In China, AI-powered platforms such as Squirrel AI are being used to provide personalised tutoring, ensuring that students receive targeted assistance where needed. Similarly, Japan has begun incorporating AI-driven grading systems in history and literature courses, allowing educators to focus more on critical thinking development rather than repetitive grading tasks. These efforts illustrate that AI, when used appropriately, can enhance rather than diminish traditional learning models.
A UNESCO report also highlights AI’s role in bridging educational gaps in underserved communities. In Africa, AI-driven digital archives are helping students and researchers access previously inaccessible historical records, promoting broader engagement with diverse historical narratives. By leveraging AI to enhance accessibility, historical education is becoming more inclusive and globally interconnected.
AI, Historical Thinking, and the Preservation of DemocracyThe ability to think historically is crucial for the preservation of democracy. Democracies thrive when citizens engage critically with information, question dominant narratives, and understand the complexities of governance and societal change. However, when history education prioritises memorisation over analysis, it weakens students’ ability to recognise misinformation, engage in meaningful debates, and participate as informed citizens.
AI, when used effectively, can play a significant role in strengthening these democratic competencies. By automating lower-order tasks such as fact retrieval and basic summarisation, AI allows educators to focus on cultivating historical reasoning and debate. AI-powered tools can expose students to multiple perspectives, simulate historical scenarios, and facilitate source triangulation, ensuring that learners engage deeply with historical complexity rather than passively consuming information.
Educational institutions must recognise that the real danger is not AI itself but the failure to teach students how to think critically about history. If schools do not adapt to incorporate AI in a meaningful way, they risk leaving students unprepared to navigate an era of increasing digital misinformation and historical revisionism. A robust history education, supported by AI, can empower students to safeguard democratic principles by critically assessing narratives, challenging biases, and understanding the broader implications of historical events.
Ethical Considerations in AI Use for History EducationOne major concern surrounding AI in education is bias in AI-generated content. Since AI models are trained on existing datasets, they may inadvertently reinforce historical biases or present skewed narratives. Studies have found that AI-generated historical summaries can sometimes underrepresent marginalised perspectives or overemphasise dominant cultural narratives. Educators must therefore adopt strategies to critically evaluate AI-generated content and encourage students to question sources.
Furthermore, AI’s ability to produce highly convincing yet misleading historical interpretations presents a risk of misinformation. If students are not taught to critically engage with AI-generated information, they may develop a passive acceptance of machine-generated historical narratives. It is essential that AI literacy is integrated into history curricula, ensuring students learn to distinguish between reliable and misleading AI outputs.
Practical Implementation Steps for AI in History EducationTo maximise AI’s benefits in history education while mitigating risks, the following steps can be taken:

• AI-Assisted Source Analysis: AI can be used to compare and contrast multiple historical sources, identifying inconsistencies and biases. Tools such as Google’s AI-powered search functions and OpenAI’s historical analysis models allow students to critically engage with historical materials in ways that were previously limited by time and accessibility constraints.
• AI-Powered Research Assistants: Institutions such as MIT and Oxford are developing AI models that assist students in finding and contextualising primary sources. By utilising AI-driven search and summarisation tools, students can quickly locate relevant historical documents and construct more nuanced arguments.
• AI-Based Interactive Learning Platforms: Programs such as Century Tech and Knewton adapt to individual student needs, offering real-time feedback and personalised historical inquiry exercises. These platforms have been shown to increase engagement and retention rates, particularly among students who struggle with traditional rote memorisation methods.

ConclusionRather than fearing AI, we should embrace its potential to move history education out of its outdated, memory-based quagmire and into a space where students are challenged to think, analyse, and argue like historians. AI offers the opportunity to fundamentally shift history education from fact-recall to critical inquiry, ensuring that students develop the skills necessary to engage meaningfully with the past and present. Only then will we equip future generations with the ability to think historically, defend democratic principles, and navigate an increasingly complex world.

AIは歴史的思考のツールであり、教育の現状を見直すべきである近年、政府はSTEM教育に多大な資金を投じているが、歴史教育は軽視されている。その結果、フェイクニュースや民主的対話の衰退など、現代の危機に対応できる批判的思考が育まれていない。AIは歴史教育を強化するツールになり得る。かつて電卓が数学教育を進化させたように、AIは単なる記憶学習を超え、史料分析や歴史的推論を支援する。適切に活用すれば、AIは歴史的思考を深め、民主主義を守るための重要な役割を果たすだろう。

Remembering Inomoto Masaru Sensei (井本勝先生) Martial arts are more than mere techniques—they are a philosophy, a way of life, and a path to self-improvement. Among the great masters who embodied this spirit was Inomoto Masaru Sensei (井本勝先生), a dedicated practitioner of Chitō-Ryū Karate-dō (千唐流空手道) and the founder of Jikishin-Ryū Karate-dō (直心流空手道). His profound influence on the martial arts world continues to inspire students across generations.
生涯と武道の道 (Life and Martial Arts Path)Key Dates (主な日付)

• Born: 1938, Kumamoto, Japan (1938年 熊本県生まれ)
• Traveled to Okinawa for Training: 1970s (1970年代 沖縄にて修行)
• Founded Jikishin-Ryū Karate-dō: Post-1984 (1984年以降 直心流空手道創設)
• Passed Away: 2023 (2023年 逝去)

**Early Life and Training (幼少期と修行時代)Early Life and Training (幼少期と修行時代)Inomoto Masaru Sensei was born in Kumamoto, Japan (熊本県), into a family with strong martial traditions. From an early age, he displayed an interest in the martial arts, initially training in Jūdō (柔道) before shifting his focus to Karate-dō (空手道).
井本勝先生は熊本県に生まれ、武道の伝統が根付いた家庭で育ちました。幼い頃から武道に興味を持ち、初めは柔道を学びましたが、後に空手道に専念するようになりました。
Training with O-Sensei Chitose (千歳強直先生との修行)At the age of 17, Inomoto Sensei began training under O-Sensei Tsuyoshi Chitose (千歳強直), the founder of Chitō-Ryū Karate-dō. Unlike many students who trained from afar, Inomoto Sensei lived close to O-Sensei for the remainder of Chitose’s life, allowing him to receive direct and continuous instruction.
井本勝先生は、17歳の時に千唐流空手道の創始者である 千歳強直先生 のもとで修行を始めました。彼は師範の近くに住み、生涯にわたり指導を受け続けました。この特別な師弟関係により、千歳先生の技術と哲学を深く学ぶことができました。
Training in Ryūkyū Kobudō and Iaido (琉球古武道と居合道の修行)In addition to his karate training, Inomoto Sensei trained under Eisuke Akamine (赤嶺栄助), the successor to Shinken Taira (平信賢), mastering Ryūkyū Kobudō (琉球古武道). He also achieved high ranks in Musō Jikiden Eishin-Ryū Iaido (無雙直伝英信流居合道), further enriching his martial expertise.
また、井本先生は 赤嶺栄助先生 の指導のもとで 琉球古武道 を学びました。さらに、無雙直伝英信流居合道 の高段者として、武術の奥義を追求し続けました。
自衛隊での指導 (Service in the Japan Self-Defense Forces)Beyond civilian martial arts, Inomoto Sensei served in the Japan Ground Self-Defense Force (陸上自衛隊, Jieitai) as a Jūkendō (銃剣道) Instructor, teaching bayonet combat techniques. His experience in military training influenced his understanding of martial application and strategy.
武道の道にとどまらず、井本先生は 日本陸上自衛隊 に所属し、銃剣道 の指導者として活躍しました。この経験は、彼の武術に対する戦略的理解を深める要因となりました。
直心流空手道の創設 (The Founding of Jikishin-Ryū Karate-dō)Jikishin-Ryū Karate-dō continues today under the leadership of Inomoto Sensei's youngest daughter, Mami Inomoto (井本真美), who upholds and furthers her father's teachings.
Following the passing of O-Sensei Chitose, Inomoto Sensei established Jikishin-Ryū Karate-dō (直心流空手道) in Kumamoto (熊本). His teachings integrated elements of Chitō-Ryū Karate, Kobudō, and Iaido, forming a comprehensive martial system.
直心流空手道の道場訓 (Jikishin-Ryū Karate-dō Dojo Kun)

1. 礼儀を重んじ、常に敬意を示すべし。
   • Respect and courtesy must always be upheld.
2. 誠実をもって行動し、心を清らかに保つべし。
   • Act with sincerity and keep your heart pure.
3. 忍耐と努力を惜しまず、己を高めるべし。
   • Cultivate patience and perseverance to improve oneself.
4. 何事にも全力を尽くし、道を切り開くべし。
   • Dedicate yourself fully to all things, and the path will open.
5. 清潔を自とすべし。
   • Maintain cleanliness as a personal standard.

まとめ (Conclusion)The legacy of Inomoto Masaru Sensei lives on through his teachings and students. His philosophy of adaptability, internal strength, and lifelong learning remains a guiding principle for martial artists worldwide.
直心流空手道の精神を受け継ぎ、未来の世代に伝えていくことこそが、私たちができる最大の敬意の表し方です。

Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Western nations have provided substantial financial and military assistance to Ukraine, ensuring its continued resistance against aggression. The United States and European countries have played pivotal roles in this effort, but how do their contributions compare? A deeper examination reveals that while both regions have committed significant resources, Europe’s per capita expenditure exceeds that of the U.S., particularly when factoring in the costs of housing and supporting Ukrainian refugees.

Breaking Down the Figures
As of January 2025, the United States has provided approximately $175 billion in total aid to Ukraine. However, not all of this sum has been directly allocated to Ukraine. Of this total, $106 billion has gone directly to the Ukrainian government for military and financial assistance, while the remainder has been used to fund U.S. activities linked to the conflict, including replenishing military stockpiles and supporting other affected regions.

In comparison, European nations (including non-EU countries such as the United Kingdom and Norway) have collectively contributed $280 billion in direct aid to Ukraine. This figure highlights Europe’s significant financial commitment, which surpasses that of the U.S. when measured in absolute terms.

Military vs. Non-Military Aid
The distribution of aid between military and humanitarian purposes varies significantly. The United States has focused heavily on military support, with around $66 billion in direct military aid, including weapons, intelligence, and training. Europe, while also providing military support, has placed greater emphasis on financial and humanitarian assistance, contributing approximately $20 billion in military aid through the European Peace Facility and national contributions. The rest of Europe’s aid has been financial or humanitarian, aimed at stabilising Ukraine’s economy and supporting refugees.

The Role of NATO & Indirect Contributions
NATO has played a crucial role in European contributions, with various European nations supporting Ukraine through military training, logistics, and coordination rather than direct financial transfers. Countries like the UK and Germany have invested heavily in training Ukrainian troops, while NATO has coordinated weapons shipments and intelligence sharing to bolster Ukraine’s defences.

Per Capita Contributions
While total figures provide one perspective, a more insightful comparison is made when analysing per capita contributions. The United States, with a population of approximately 335 million, has spent around $316 per person in direct aid to Ukraine. Meanwhile, Europe, with a combined population of roughly 750 million, has provided approximately $373 per capita.

Supporting Ukrainian Refugees
One of the major differences between the U.S. and Europe’s response has been the cost of housing and supporting displaced Ukrainians. Europe has taken on the vast majority of the refugee burden, with over 8 million Ukrainians seeking refuge in European nations. Approximately 4 million have been granted temporary protection status, entitling them to accommodation, healthcare, employment, and education.

To support this influx, European countries have spent an additional $47 billion, with significant expenditures from Poland ($13 billion) and Germany ($12 billion). When combining this with direct aid to Ukraine, Europe’s total financial commitment reaches $327 billion, equating to $436 per capita.

In contrast, the United States has provided $9.63 billion in refugee-related assistance, including $481 million allocated for direct resettlement within the U.S. When this expenditure is added to its total aid, the U.S. per capita contribution rises to $345—still significantly lower than Europe’s.

Long-Term Commitments vs. Immediate Spending
While the U.S. often approves large aid packages in short-term increments, Europe has taken a more long-term approach. The European Union, for example, has committed €50 billion ($54 billion) under the Ukraine Facility, a multi-year financial package to support Ukraine’s economy and reconstruction between 2024-2027. This suggests that Europe’s involvement will continue beyond immediate battlefield needs.

Public Opinion and Political Shifts
Public opinion towards Ukrainian aid varies between the U.S. and Europe. In the U.S., political divisions have led to growing scepticism about continued support, with debates intensifying as the 2024 elections approached. In Europe, while public support remains strong, concerns about the economic impact and refugee integration have led to political discussions about the sustainability of ongoing aid.

The recent election of President Donald Trump has also raised uncertainty about future U.S. support, as his administration has suggested reassessing foreign aid priorities. Meanwhile, European nations have reaffirmed their long-term commitments, recognising Ukraine’s role in regional stability.

Challenges & Criticism
While aid has been essential, there have been concerns regarding transparency and efficiency in its distribution. Reports of corruption and mismanagement in Ukraine have led to calls for stricter oversight, especially from donor countries. Additionally, some European nations, such as Hungary, have shown reluctance to continue high levels of aid, citing domestic economic concerns. Managing these internal divisions will be crucial for maintaining aid consistency.

Impact of Aid on Ukraine’s Stability
Both U.S. and European aid have played crucial roles in Ukraine’s military and economic resilience. Military assistance has allowed Ukraine to sustain its defences, while financial aid has helped the government continue essential services. However, there is increasing concern about the sustainability of aid. Ukraine’s economy remains dependent on foreign assistance, and as the war continues, donor fatigue could become a significant challenge.
Visual Summary: U.S. vs. European Aid

​




Conclusion:
Who Has Given More?When measured per capita, Europe has provided considerably more financial assistance than the U.S., particularly when factoring in the cost of supporting refugees. The U.S. per capita total stands at $345, whereas Europe’s contribution is $436 per person.

These figures demonstrate that while the United States’ aid is crucial for Ukraine’s military efforts, Europe has shouldered a broader financial and social responsibility, absorbing millions of refugees and providing long-term support beyond military funding.

Moving forward, the sustainability of these commitments remains a pressing question. With shifting political dynamics—particularly in the U.S.—there is growing uncertainty regarding future aid. Meanwhile, European nations continue to explore long-term solutions, both for Ukraine’s stability and for integrating the millions of displaced Ukrainians now residing within their borders.

Ultimately, while both the U.S. and Europe have made substantial contributions, Europe’s financial and humanitarian support to Ukraine has outpaced that of the United States when assessed on a per capita basis.

ウクライナ支援における米国と欧州の比較：主要なポイント
ロシアのウクライナ侵攻（2022年2月）以降、米国と欧州は多大な支援 を提供してきましたが、それぞれの貢献には重要な違いがあります。本記事では、総額・軍事支援・難民支援・一人当たりの負担額 などを比較し、欧州が米国を上回る貢献をしていることを明らかにします。
1. 総額と直接援助

• 米国：総額 1,750億ドル、うち 1,060億ドル がウクライナ政府への直接支援
• 欧州：総額 2,800億ドル、すべてがウクライナ政府への直接支援
  ➡ 欧州は米国よりも大きな規模で資金提供 している。

2. 軍事援助の違い

• 米国：軍事支援に 660億ドル（武器・訓練・情報支援）
• 欧州：軍事支援は 200億ドル、主にEUの平和基金や各国支援から
  ➡ 米国は軍事支援に重点 を置き、欧州は 財政・人道支援を重視 している。

3. 難民支援

• 欧州：800万人 のウクライナ難民を受け入れ、470億ドルを投入
• 米国：96億ドル の支援のみ、受け入れ数は限定的
  ➡ 欧州はウクライナ難民を大規模に受け入れ、社会的負担を担っている。

4. 一人当たりの負担額

• 米国：一人当たり 345ドル
• 欧州：一人当たり 436ドル
  ➡ 欧州の方が 国民一人当たりの負担が大きい。

5. 今後の課題

• 政治的変化（トランプ政権の米国支援削減の可能性）
• 欧州内の意見の分裂（ハンガリーなどの支援消極的な国）
• ウクライナ経済の持続可能性（長期的な財政支援が必要）

結論：欧州の支援が米国を上回る米国の支援は 軍事的に重要 ですが、欧州は財政・人道支援、難民受け入れを含めてより大きな貢献 をしています。特に、一人当たりの負担額では欧州が米国を大きく上回っており、ウクライナ支援の主導的役割を果たしているのは欧州 であると考えられます。
➡ 米国と欧州の支援スタイルの違いを理解し、今後の持続可能な支援の在り方を考えることが重要です。