Historical "facts" and popular representations of histrical figures that are wrong

[C. Cain]

Also;

"Your genetics are the things that determine what your brain looks like, how tall you are, what colour your eyes will be, etc. Environment is the culture and the society we are raised in, the way our parents teach us and the things we see. They combine to create the man or woman you are."

Is there a particular reason why you ignored my post that refuted your simplistic definition of what genes do?

Anyway, let me make this as clear as possible:
The environment influences the way your genes are expressed. It doesn't matter if two organisms have the same set of genes if they are raised in drastically different environments. A clone that suffered from malnutrition during development will not have the same phenotype as a clone that developed in an ideal environment. Nurture v Nature is meaningless; you cannot properly separate one from another.

 

[IamQ]

The first one I could think of was that Napoleon was short. He wasn't, 5'7" was average for his time and he was seen in public with his guards who were well above average.

This is one of the ones I'm really confused how people still belived it. People only said he was short in propaganda against him during the wars, and while he may not be the tallest man around, you should also have in mind that this was around 300 years ago.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

Both influence us equally, as a unitary factor and not independently of each other.

You didn't read the comment at all, did you. You just quoted me to agree with what I just said, but under the assumption that it was wrong.

They combine to create the man or woman you are.

But it was wrong. 'Nature vs nurture' isn't a "thing" because genetics and environment aren't distinct. Got it now?

Not that any of this has anything to do with the original point about Hitler being removed from his environment. It seems you just want to argue for the sake of arguing.

 

[The Harkinator]

Some people seem to think King John was actually a good king and that it's just Robin Hood that's given him a bad name. He was, in fact, such a bad king that the Barons went to war with him. On the other hand, that gave us Parliament and the Magna Carta, so, as Churchill said, "When the long tally is added, it will be seen that the British nation and the English-speaking world owe far more to the vices of John than to the labours of virtuous sovereigns."

he was delt a bad hand from the lion heart who bankrupt the nation on a failed war across the world. so that did not help.

Just saying, who benefits most from the Magna Carta? The Barons. Who enforced the Magna Carta? The Barons.

You don't have to be a bad King to have your Barons fight you, just in a bad position. His elder brother was much worse. He bankrupted the kingdom, spent 6 months of his 10 year reign in his kingdom and much preferred going to war than ruling a Kingdom. Richard caused a massive economic mess yet history looks mostly favourable on him because of his other exploits. The man who had to try and fix the shitstorm is not well liked.

 

[micahrp]

The only historical fact I can state is that I was not present for most of history and I doubt anyone else I know was either.

Personally I hate history. The majority of book history is not independantly verifiable except by other books which is not verification. In my opinion independant verification needs to be the basis of all shared knowledge. If I can't verify anything I am told it must be treated as suspect. I can be shown the location of these historical events, but unless I took part in the original event I will never be able to know the event actually took place much less the motivation behind the event.

The other reason I hate history is because those people died. They did not find a way to live and this bodes not well for the chances of my survival.

 

[Leadfinger]

I think Hitler was a great leader. He did a few things during the 30's that he shouldn't have (like dissolving the SA with a knife and locking up the socialists) but underneath the mess there was a fantastic leader. He gets misrepresented and demonized much more than he might deserve.

If he hadn't come into power during the depression, if the upper class had been slightly more varied in ethnic makeup, if the socialists didn't cave to public pressure and open the door for him... Under different circumstances, Hitler may have been the greatest leader Germany had ever known.

What about the whole "let's eradicate the Jews" thing?

I already answered that and added several "if onlys," too;

If he hadn't come into power during the depression, if the upper class had been slightly more varied in ethnic makeup, if the socialists didn't cave to public pressure and open the door for him... Under different circumstances, Hitler may have been the greatest leader Germany had ever known.

No, your "if onlys" don't answer that. Hitler was an evil man with a diabolical lust for power. This can easily be seen by the huge number of evil acts he committed. Even if Hitler had come to power in different circumstances, and this is a big if, he still would have wrought evil.

You asked me about what the Nazi Party had done to the Jews and then went on a rant about other evils? Again, I already answered your question; if someone says "if only" that would imply they wished the outcome or events had been different. That is your answer. You don't have to like it.

If only your original idea about Hitler being a "great leader" weren't so patently absurd, if only your subsequent answers not complete non-sequitors, there might have been some glimmer of intelligibility in the otherwise gibbering non-sense of your post. If only...

 

[A Random Reader]

You know how everyone thinks that spinach has tonnes of protein? Almost as much as red meat? Well, this comes from the fact that they put a zero on the end of the report of how much protein it had. By accident.

 

[Ferisar]

Oh wow, the derail in this thread -and the non-existent argument - are hilarious. I'll keep a look-out to where I can read something that's actually worthwhile past this point.

It's always Hitler isn't it, the inarguably worst leader in history.

On the actual topic:
I don't really know, honestly. My best affiliation with the subject would stem from having grown up in Russia, partially, and the immense gap of opinion between the U.S. and Russia when it comes to the second World War, but I think this thread has that covered already.

Granted, it's almost just as polarized back there as it is here. Kind of necessary to take all of it with a grain of salt in the early educational system when growing up.

 

[Tropicaz]

Hitler is portrayed inaccurately in most historical accounts. There. Done.

Great job, wasn't so hard, was it?

Now back up what you are saying with factual information from a credible source that utilizes proper citations.

I didn't know we were required to do that. I was just following your lead;

Not sure if this is common knowledge or not but for a brief time, America did have it's own little empire. It didn't come close to the size of say The british empire, but up until the end of world war two I believe, with a few minor exceptions with things like the panama canal, America did indeed impose itself on other people for economic gain.

Or are there credible sources and citations in there that I can't see?

You provide sources when called out on, such as now. Here i'll give you one:

http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/mod/1901platt.asp

Your turn.

Oh, you're not going to do it for any of your other comments? Also, what about citations? I only see a source there. It's almost like you're making this up as you go.

Oops, my baaaad!

http://wesscholar.wesleyan.edu/etd_hon_theses/123/

There you are, now, once more. Your turn.

Edit: Furthermore, i'll provide support for other posts when called upon, but don't let that distract you from your complete lack of support for anything you have said thus far. ;P

Since when was one student's thesis a go-to citation worth... anything? If you're going to try and hold me to your rules, you have to do better than that.

It's worth more than the opinion of someone on an internet forum, which is what you're using to display your 'facts.'