Lies they teach you in HIstory class

[lostclause]

If that is how you define Communism, then what word should we assign to the phenomenon that we saw in soviet countries? There was certainly a ruling class in these countries, and it seemed to be more exclusive and oppressive than the ruling classes of many other societies.

I can understand if you think that "Communism" should refer to Marx and Engels's theoretical utopia, but this has a very tenuous relationship with reality.

You are of course entirely correct. I am more referring to true Marxism or possibly the ideal of communism, without people to mess it up. However communism does put the government before the people otherwise things like censorship cannot be condoned. I do realise that since the government is supposed to be a reflection of the people's will this means that it can't be wrong when acting on behalf of the people (this would justify their actions) but I don't quite believe that myself.
If you look at the social elite that emerged it's because they were government officials and the human nature to abuse power meant that they ended up becoming that oppressive elite. The word you should assign is corruption, not merely political corruption but the corruption of the ideals of communism, equality and trust.
Now I'm beginning to take lines from V for Vendetta but humans seek leaders and refuse to take responsibility. By doing so we undermine our equality and leave ourselves vulnerable to exploitation and betrayal.
Sorry that that rant was a bit over the top but that's just me.

 

[psijac]

# 2nd post on the 16th page!: Paul Revere did not Shout "The British are Coming!" Most Colonist considered themselves British citizens at the time he shouted "The Regulars are coming out." Yet we pass along this urban legend as fact.

I also headr a Rumor that Mr. Rogers was a Marine Sniper in Vietnam. but that's a liar Senior enlisted tell the lower ranks so they will believe you can remain normal after killing another human being

 

[Nuke_em_05]

When incorporated, under the fourteenth amendment, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States". This means that State law cannot abridge Federal law.

Well, first off, that's a dead clause:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)#Slaughter_House
Incorporation is done under the Equal Protection clause:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochin_v._California

And here's the thing about wikipedia:

It is often said mmm... to cite your precious wikipedia... I think this is a [a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words]weasel term[/a] that the Slaughter-House Cases "gutted the Privileges or Immunities Clause," and thus prevented its use for applying the Bill of Rights against the states.[1] In his dissent to Adamson v. California, however, Justice Hugo Black has pointed out that the Slaughter-House Cases did not directly involve any right enumerated in the Constitution:

[T]he state law under consideration in the Slaughter-House cases was only challenged as one which authorized a monopoly, and the brief for the challenger properly conceded that there was "no direct constitutional provision against a monopoly." The argument did not invoke any specific provision of the Bill of Rights, but urged that the state monopoly statute violated "the natural right of a person" to do business and engage in his trade or vocation.[2]

Thus, in Black's view, the Slaughterhouse Cases should not impede incorporation of the Bill of Rights against the states, via the Privileges or Immunities Clause. Some scholars go even further, and argue that the Slaughterhouse Cases affirmatively supported incorporation of the Bill of Rights against the states.[3] In dicta, Justice Miller's opinion in Slaughterhouse went so far as to acknowledge that the "right to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievances ... are rights of the citizen guaranteed by the Federal Constitution," although in context Miller may have only been referring to assemblies for petitioning the federal government.[4]two lines of unqualified statement, two paragraphs of contradiction

It doesn't mean that States can't make their own laws where the Federal Government has not

No, that's not what it means. It means that the states can't make laws that violate the Incorporated portions of the Bill of Rights or Fundamental Rights--the part of the Constitution that does what you're talking about is the Supremacy clause:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_clause

I think we said the same thing here.

Striking similarities exist between the supremacy clause and the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

On the one hand, both are parts of the US Constitution that define the federal government's rule over the States. One difference, however, is that whereas the supremacy clause deals with the relationship between the federal government and the states, the fourteenth amendment deals with the relationship among the federal government, states, and citizens, with emphasis being placed upon the citizens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_clause#The_Fourteenth_Amendment

I understand the difference between the Supremacy clause and the Priviledges and Immunities clause. Just maybe need to verify that the latter has been abolished?

(i.e. homosexual marriage).

Actually, marriage is a tricky case--it's clearly within the traditional police powers of the states, but on the other hand, it's a fundamental right:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/righttomarry.htm

I think we have the same point here... there is no federal law about wether homosexual marriages are valid or invalid, so it is up to the states to determine.

 

[Verbose]

This social contractism you mention sounds interesting though. I may be reading it wrong (had to look it up on wikipedia) but isn't it just a form of democracy? I can't see too much difference.

It's basically the ethical theory that life is shit but if we all surrender some of our freedoms to some state or authority (Thomas Hobbes, one of the most famous social contractualists, called it a Leviathan which I like because it sounds kinda badass) then life is notably less shit. Politically, it can manifest in a lot of ways but it tends to be very outcome focussed, and usually fairly authoritarian.

It's a bit democratic, I suppose, in the sense that the idea is everybody has to agree (explicitly or implicitly) to give up their freedoms. In effect, it's basically got a governing body who has a huge scope of power. If the governing body keeps its end of the bargain then it keeps people safe and stable and what have you, if the governing body doesn't keep its end of the bargain then nobody else has any reason to keep their end and they go looking to make a new deal (read, violent revolution).

In effect, there's actually very little that's set in the theory. I'm a social contractualist who believes in an authoritarian government and a strong welfare system. You can have a completely different concept of the best way to frame a social contract. The idea is that the quality of a contract is seen in its functionality, since if it fails to be functional people will eventually change it.

 

[lostclause]

It's basically the ethical theory that life is shit but if we all surrender some of our freedoms to some state or authority (Thomas Hobbes, one of the most famous social contractualists, called it a Leviathan which I like because it sounds kinda badass) then life is notably less shit. Politically, it can manifest in a lot of ways but it tends to be very outcome focussed, and usually fairly authoritarian.

It's a bit democratic, I suppose, in the sense that the idea is everybody has to agree (explicitly or implicitly) to give up their freedoms. In effect, it's basically got a governing body who has a huge scope of power. If the governing body keeps its end of the bargain then it keeps people safe and stable and what have you, if the governing body doesn't keep its end of the bargain then nobody else has any reason to keep their end and they go looking to make a new deal (read, violent revolution).

In effect, there's actually very little that's set in the theory. I'm a social contractualist who believes in an authoritarian government and a strong welfare system. You can have a completely different concept of the best way to frame a social contract. The idea is that the quality of a contract is seen in its functionality, since if it fails to be functional people will eventually change it.

I think I get it but couldn't you classify any government (except Anarchy) as such a system? After all in exchange for giving up, say, your freedom to steal you are given a guarantee that they will try to prevent it happening to you (in whatever way the government sees fit be it preventative or punitive). And this happens in just about every government, to a greater or lesser degree.

 

[Emmelly]

it's actually very supportable that he had the princes murdered so there was no question of his right to the throne. I'm personally happy that Henry VII threw him off his high-horse

 

[Goldbling]

Columbus was actually a greedy bastard who set out to enslave thousands of Native Americans he set out on his journey to prove "the world was round" the same year the globe was invented.

 

[4fromK]

I am trying to compile a list of lies or misinformation they teach you in History class. So far this doesn't even apply to current events which would make this list far more interesting. Do you have any you think you want to add or any rebuttals. Also note for those in other countries, this is written from an American perspective.
Lie #1
Communism and Fascism are opposites. The truth is they are both totalitarian governments run by dictators who oppose individuality. In fact the Nazis were the National Socialist German Worker'S Party.
Lie #2
Europe was better under Stalin than Hitler. The fact is Stalin was responsible for more deaths in Europe than Hitler was.
Lie #3
Inflation is a natural process of the Economy. The truth is inflation can be avoided or at the very least minimized if the Government didn't continue to over mint money and if we actually had money that was backed by something.
Lie #4
The civil war was fought primarily over slavery. The fact is, although slavery was on issue,the main one was state's rights vs. Federal power. If the main focus was slavery than states like Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri would have joined the South, they had slaves and were Northern states, and additionally the Emancipation Proclamation didn't apply to them.

the only one i wasnt aware of was number three. makes sense thinking about it now. Im pretty sure I learned the truths in history class, and my history class doesnt touch on economics, so oh well.

 

[little.09]

Japans sneak attack at pearl harbour, the US govt had already cracked the Japanese embassies code, and new what the ambassador was going to deliver a declaration of war, on the day of an attack, so Roosevelt had him stood up in the waiting room out side his office for 6 hours!! until confirmation of the attack came thru, he then railled against their cowardly undeclared attack.

I'm sorry but although cowardly every large nation (including Australia where i am from) has used stealth tactics its just that pearl harbor had a devistatingly high casualty rate for Americans and everyone has to agree with america because they have more than half the worlds nukes.

 

[TacticalAssassin1]

---"thenumberthirteen:
Most of my classes on the assasination of JFK seem to have all come from the film "JFK". They where all full of conspiracies and "Magic Bullets". I later found out (though THAT source may have been wrong too) that Jee Harvey Oswald WAS quite a good shot, and could have hit him without too much difficulty (at least it wouldn't have been impossible), and that the bullet shot from the rifle was tough enough to go through a soft target without deforming, and, something that I pointed out when the teacher told us this, how could he have been shot from the "Grassy knoll" when he was shot in the back of the head?

Of course we all now know that JFK traveled back in time and shot himself to save the world from the Soviets, and so Lister could get a Smegging Curry."---

oh come on, are you from the CIA or something?
you say "how could he be shot from the grassy knoll, he was hit in the back of the head" well, if you watched the movie JFK then you will know that the main and most plausible conspiracy theory states that he was caught in a crossfire and therefore shot from three different angles.

DO NOT TRUST AMERICA

 

[axia777]

DO NOT TRUST AMERICA

Oh what? Like we can trust say England? Or China? Or Russia? Or even Canada? All governments lie, get used to it.

 

[asinann]

There is the establishment clause of the first Amendment but people seem to overlook the part where it says, "nor prohibit the free practice thereof".

Except that in every instance where a religion has gained power throughout history (a real religion, not the church of england or some other church created to be a political tool) that religion has worked to stomp out all other religions (see Judaism in the BCE, Catholicism in the middle ages and the Islam now.)

That clause was supposed to prevent the majority religion from getting political power and using that power to intimidate out of existence or outright destroy opposing views and faiths.It almost failed anyway (though religion is dying a slow death in the US, proclaimed atheists doubled over the last 20 years from 8 to 16% of the population while christianity dropped from 92% to 78% and many others calling themselves "spiritual and not religious.")

Japans sneak attack at pearl harbour, the US govt had already cracked the Japanese embassies code, and new what the ambassador was going to deliver a declaration of war, on the day of an attack, so Roosevelt had him stood up in the waiting room out side his office for 6 hours!! until confirmation of the attack came thru, he then railled against their cowardly undeclared attack.

I'm sorry but although cowardly every large nation (including Australia where i am from) has used stealth tactics its just that pearl harbor had a devistatingly high casualty rate for Americans and everyone has to agree with america because they have more than half the worlds nukes.

Actually, we have LESS than half. If Russia and the US have to have (by treaty) the exact same number of warheads, and there are still other countries with nukes, then by very simple math (A=US nuke, R=Russian nukes and X= everyone else's, T= total number of the world's nukes) we can say that: A+R+X=T so unless X=0 (and it doesn't) A+R =/= T.

 

[RyVal]

Not so much a lie as selectivity:

World War Two ended when Germany was defeated and Berlin was occupied, and we convienently omit the part near the end where the Allies use weapons-of-mass-destruction on Japan.

And does it really matter whether Hiroshima was military or not? Was Dresden? Was London? Was Tokyo?

The point being that none of those cities were atom bomb'd.

 

[TacticalAssassin1]

DO NOT TRUST AMERICA

Oh what? Like we can trust say England? Or China? Or Russia? Or even Canada? All governments lie, get used to it.

Im not saying that other countries governments are trustworthy, im just saying that some gullible americans (like Britney Spears) trust their government and whatever they say no matter what.
Wasnt it britney spears that said we should just trust president bush about invading iraq because he's our president ect ect when he just invaded for the oil. Watch Fahrenheit 9/11 if you think im full of crap

 

[lostclause]

Eh, I think Verbose is kinda mischaracterizing things. Yeah, Hobbes was a social contract thinker, but he differs greatly from the other social contract thinkers: for Hobbes, the state of nature was nasty, short, brutish, and dull; for Locke, the state of nature would be a happy place if only people wouldn't infringe on each other. For Hobbes, the answer is to just submit to an absolute ruler; for Locke, it was to come together in a government that resolved disputes and defended the people from outside aggression.

but couldn't you classify any government (except Anarchy) as such a system?

Not really--a Theocracy might claim the allegiance of anyone of that religion with or without their consent; a Monarch might claim to rule by divine right/mandate of heaven; Fascism claims the allegiance of anyone of that nation. Communism...not necessarily. Communism is really a form of natural law--even though no one wants to admit it--which you find in social contract governments too.

To be fair to Verbose, he does acknowledge that there are other forms of social contract and also it seems to me that Hobbes is more in line with his personal beliefs (if you read his post before) so it's fair enough that Hobbes is his first though for a social contract.
You do have a good point with the theocracy and monarchy, provided they aren't constitutional ones. Come to think of it anything without a written law and depends on one person or a small group gives no guarantees. However I disagree about fascism. After all fascism that depends on a legal framework and is not a dictatorship is a form of social contract. Oh, and communism claims that as a representative of the people (like they had a choice in a one-party system) any act it make on behalf of the people must be the people's will. That's how they justify it.
I have one question though. Even though a government such as a monarchy might not rely on a written law shouldn't an unspoken law (defence of the nation, say uphold the rights of noblility) constitute a social contract? After all there are countless examples of kings being overthrown by disgruntled nobles, or even commoners in the 19th century. Granted this would largely be a social contract with a few and perhaps an ill defined one but surely it is one nevertheless?

 

[Lusadaka]

Not so much a lie as selectivity:

World War Two ended when Germany was defeated and Berlin was occupied, and we convienently omit the part near the end where the Allies use weapons-of-mass-destruction on Japan.

Thats not entirely true. The war between America and Japan continued for a short period of time after that until America Nuked them which caused the Japanese to surrender. Fact is they surrendered to America but not the rest of the Allies. The Japanese were still in China (because in 1938 japan invaded china which might have actually been the beginning of WW2) so the Chinese and some Russian divisions were transferred to kick them outta there. Not exaclty sure when it ended but china was liberated after a while. What is odd is to this day Russia and Japan never signed a peace treaty. Probably because during the liberation of China by the Russians, the Kuril islands were captured. Which is caused and i think still is causing a bit of tension between the two.