Lies they teach you in HIstory class

[Computer-Noob]

Well, I learned in history that the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings we not neccesary, and apparently Japan attempted to surrender to the US on a few occasions beforehand.

I doubt its a lie, but some overly-patriotic fuckwits would probably say otherwise.

 

[A random person]

I think I was taught that Hiroshima was a military base and not a civilian city.

it was a manufacturing capitol, where alot of weapons and tanks were being made.


Our HIGH SCHOOL HISTORY TEACHER, that is 9-12th grade for non-americans out there believes that world war II didnt start untill after pearl harbor, even when I said that it started in '39 with the blitzkrieg he sent me to the On Campus Suspension for disrupting the class. the main point is: I got in trouble for being right, so I decided to let every other student become stupid by not saying anything ever again.

Ok, wow your teacher's stupid. Wasn't WWII mostly a European conflict, with America later joining in after Pearl Harbor?

 

[Nuke_em_05]

I wonder how you make that correlation. The complete line is "freedom of speech, or the press." So yes, the second argument is invalid as you suggest. Please explain your correlation.

EDIT: misunderstood you. Are you saying the 1st Amendment doesn't protect the written word unless it's a petition of the government or a news report?

I'm confused as to what you are trying to argue. Freedom of speech and the press means freedom to communicate whatever you want in whatever form you prefer. So, the second have of your bolded section is valid, books are not exempt from the first amendment. I was commenting more toward the idea that you're trying to say that the ten commandments in a courthouse and banning books are similar situations.

The pledge and ten commandements do not establish a chruch.

You are not required to say the pledge, or every line of it. Nor are you required to believe it. It simply acknowldges that the United States was founded under the principles of God.

That's called Ceremonial Deism. What you're talking about is favoring one religion over another.

So earlier you you said

But in at least two of those cases--the Pledge and the Ten Commandments--it establishes a church. An Abrahamic one in the case of the Pledge, and either a Protestant or a Catholic one in the case of the Ten Commandments:

It does not establish a church, only acknowledges the founding.

Which of you is on the side saying America was not founded as a Christian nation/or that the majority of the founding fathers were not Christian? :0

I'll re-state to answer Jak. The Declaration of Independence cites the reason for revolt as a list of greivances vs the King. Citing them as a violation of the responsibiliy of government to uphold certain rights. Rights grated by the Creator. They would not put it in and sign it if they did not believe in it, and especially if they disagreed.

Displaying the Ten Commandments in a courthouse do not require anyone to believe or follow them. You could say that it is simply historical pretext, "here's some ancient law".

But religious content is NOT prohibited when displayed as such--Moses is on the Supreme Court:

So... are you agreeing or disagreeing?

Again, it is about requiring religious belief.

No it isn't, it is about states rights--including the right to require religious belief--as originally written.

So... right to require religious belief? Are you pro or con?

Anyway, we've covered this. Yes, the concept of separation of church and state was really about applying the First amendment to the states. As this has already occured, people now cite it as "no God in government". I thought we were past this already and discussing the true application of the First Amendment. If I was mistaken, I apologize.

It means not establishing or controlling a church. I define this as requiring membership in a certain religion or dictating what a certain religion should believe.

I have stated my opinion that "under God" in the pledge, "in God we trust" on currency, the ten commandments, and prayer in government meetings, do not establish or control a church. In no way is any citizen required to participate in any of those, or to believe what they are based on. Thus, citing the First Amendment against them is an invalid argument.

 

[lostclause]

Again, I'm not talking about the cold war here, I'm talking about differences and similarities between Nazi germany and the soviet union. I'm not saying anyhting about wether the deeds were necessary or moral, of course they are all wrong. I'm just simply trying to point out that it's not explained as easily "it's a matter of perspective" which one was worse. And now I'm talking about for the people, not the numbers the politicians and generals wrote down. Both were horrid forms of goverment, where the people didn't have a chance to live as they pleased.(a normal life). You just go and see Belarus, Ukraine, Poland, the lot. Immensly beautiful places, wonderful people, but all run down, full of gigantic concrete blocks, much of the cultural heritage destroyed, many families separated and scattered.
"Same crap, different moustache"

Yes, the germans were quick to expand their industry. The scoda works in czehoslovakia, the gunworks in Rumania, Renault works in france, the FN workshops in belgium, all put to good use very swiftly.
And also yes, in 1938-9, the soviets were heading for war on full speed. After uncle Joe accidentally 3 people in a massive food shortage, the agriculture was left alone from 1934 and 1936 on, war was in sight (Stalin had palns already) and the people ate enough not to starve. You are right, the soviets produced lots and lots of tractors and were more interested in wheat that bullets, but after Germany revealed her new battleship "Deutschland" class, and thus wiped their butts with the versailles treaty, Stalin pressed the emergency armament button. And during the course of the war, Stalin hit the "super armament button" with a maul, and the soviets had found their thing: making things that break things.
From that on, the soviets never really went back to consentrating on agricultural or domestic products, etc. We all know the AK-47 and all of its offspring, the T-series tanks, MiG and Shukoi Fighters and Tupolev bombers. People didn't matter in either of the systems, production numbers for tanks did.

Okay the cold war thing was a slight side track due to prague. Anyway, my point there was that circumstances were over-ruling morals on both sides. But going back on topic.
Really? Until anyone can say for certain that either was worse for the vast majority of people, I think it is a matter of perspective. After all remember what the overhanging nazi ideology was: they were superior and the slavs should be wiped out. Whether they'd have ever actually implemented this policy is a question we can't answer but certainly everyone in europe who didn't meet the standards of 'racial purity' would suffer. As much as they did under communism? Again, a question we can't answer simply because it was never given an oppurtunity to happen. But I agree that the loss of several cultures (such as the prussians) are a sad result of Soviet actions.
On the soviet economy: I'm quite surprised there. I would have thought that Stalin expected the Germans to honour the Nazi- Soviet treaty. After all, despite the evidence to the contrary, he refused to believe operation Barbarossa would go ahead. I mean yes he'd have been worried after the initial build up but I'd have thought he would have de-escalated the re-armament after the treaty was signed.

 

[S53]

We got the American Civil War, and how it was about "slavery".

Once again, the consensus position among historians is that slavery was the primary cause of the American Civil War.

Of course, saying that any really, really major world event happens for just one reason is simplistic and stupid, but saying that the Civil War somehow "wasn't about slavery" is beyond stupid -- it's a monstrous, self-serving lie with no grounding in historical fact.

-- Alex

Self serving lie, eh? Slavery was a part of the Civil War. But it wasn't the main cause. State's rights were the issue. Henry Clay and his Compromises kept all hell from breaking loose for about 60 years, but it fell apart with different states claiming it was their right to own slaves, and that the Feds should haven't anything to do. Slavery was a leading cause, but not the only cause. That little white lie is taught in the American Public School System.

 

[Kinguendo]

*SNIP*

So... it was you saying the founding fathers were mostly Deist?

Its 7:25AM here and I havent been to sleep yet... :0

 

[Nuke_em_05]

*SNIP*

So... it was you saying the founding fathers were mostly Deist?

Its 7:25AM here and I havent been to sleep yet... :0

That was more of a sub-argument to a larger discussion, but yes.

Respond now if you like, but I'd recommend going to bed first.

 

[Kinguendo]

*SNIP*

So... it was you saying the founding fathers were mostly Deist?

Its 7:25AM here and I havent been to sleep yet... :0

That was more of a sub-argument to a larger discussion, but yes.

Respond now if you like, but I'd recommend going to bed first.

Oh I am not here to start an argument, I am here to shake the hand of the dude who knows that fact.

Thomas Paine was my favourite.

 

[S53]

Paine was awesome. I read Common Sense on the plane back from Boston. Obviously a little outdated, but nonetheless quite inspiring.

 

[Teh Ty]

Columbus was a good guy!
My social studies teacher told us the truth a week before the year ended and how he enslaved all the people and killed a lot of people.

 

[Alex_P]

Self serving lie, eh? Slavery was a part of the Civil War. But it wasn't the main cause. State's rights were the issue. Henry Clay and his Compromises kept all hell from breaking loose for about 60 years, but it fell apart with different states claiming it was their right to own slaves, and that the Feds should haven't anything to do. Slavery was a leading cause, but not the only cause. That little white lie is taught in the American Public School System.

You're contradicting yourself here, I think.

The "states' rights" thing was a technique to try to advance the southern states' agendas, not an end goal. "States' rights" was a tool for trying to get their way on issues like slavery and tariffs. Look at every bit of evidence I've mentioned. Or, heck, look at the CSA's actual constitution. It's a practical clone of the US Constitution with limits on the federal government's power to impose tariffs (that's a "states' rights" position) and federal protection for slavery (that's very much the opposite of "states' rights"). It didn't have a legal secession clause, either -- apparently all of the states except South Carolina thought that would be a bad thing. So much for "states' rights".

-- Alex

 

[Shadedblade]

American students are taught that the war of 1812 never happened. That is bullcrap, their whitehouse got burned down and they don't want to admit it.

Not true, I specifically remember getting taught of this war twice, once in middle school and once in high school. It was a very small war(less than 15,000 deaths across the board) though, so of course it didn't get a lot of page space. I think that people dying is more important than our fucking capital getting burned down, don't you?

 

[blaze96]

Yea, I think I remember something about that. Also,in the US we claim that WWII started in 1941 when Europe puts the date at 1939,while Hitler gained power even before that.

are you serious? USA is alot more arrogant now, its like you guys think that a war doesn't start until you join it.

Not arrogant just ignorant, I'm in high school and when we covered world war 2 in my world history class most people just genuinely didn't know. It isn't that they didn't care about any other nation's involvement, they didn't care about history period. Trust me when I say that at least in California, even American history escapes Americans.We aren't arrogant just stupid.