Lies they teach you in HIstory class

Recommended Videos

Abedeus

New member
Sep 14, 2008
7,412
0
0
Uhm. Lie nr. 1, 2 and 3... are lies that I've learned in my History class. I didn't learn about American history (pff), so I don't know anything about nr. 4.

Fascism and communism are not opposite, but they also aren't exactly the same.

Nazism = German Fascism. With elements of racism.
 

BonsaiK

Music Industry Corporate Whore
Nov 14, 2007
5,635
0
0
Wow, my history education must have been really crap because I don't remember being taught anything listed above in school, either the right OR the wrong versions!

The only lie that springs to mind for me was Captain Cook discovering Australia.
 

Warwolt

New member
May 23, 2009
87
0
0
NeutralDrow said:
PatientGrasshopper said:
lostclause said:
Umm, Lie one is wrong. They are left and right wing, they're just opposite in names and methods. Just because they have a couple of similarities doesn't mean they're not opposites (for example they're both governments!)
Lie two is also wrong. Europe was under soviet yoke for longer than just stalin, and even so 'better' is not something that can be measured in body counts. Also you're forgetting perspective, it was better for say Jews bacuase just about anything was better than the nazi's.
I was never taught 3 or 4 so I'll keep quiet on them.
The opposite of Communism is Anarchy, the political spectrum is not exactly linear.
Communism and Anarchy are almost the same thing...
Or how about you learn something about those ideologies. Communism is an extreme leftist authoritarian state-model, Anarchism is just extreme liberalism.
 

Dessembrae

New member
Feb 27, 2008
196
0
0
Deadpoolsbrain said:
Strawb said:
Strawb said:
Lie #8:
USA is founded on Christian beliefs and principles, and the signers of the Declaration of Independence were all Christians.
Umm really I hear this all the time but where are these people? I know not all where christians but reading all the documents and letters amongst each other God, morals, Christianity, are all throughout them. So to declare that the US wasn't founded on "Christian" beliefs seems to me a bit off.
Most of the founding fathers were either pantheists or believed that God does not interfere with us, so them putting in Christian "beliefs" in the DoI would be odd. Also, them writing texts about God and so on, on their own is a different thing.
Besides, Christianity can't call dibs on "morals". It is possible for the founding fathers to just be decent human beings and wanting good behaviour(even if that sounds quite controlling).
Two of the main contributers were known atheists John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. There is also some speculation that Benjamin Franklin was an atheist as well but he was most likely a deist or agnostic.
Just so, this page has the gist of it: http://bmccreations.com/one_nation/nation.html

This quote from James Madison is probably my favorite on that page ^^
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."
 

Thurmer

New member
Jul 15, 2009
337
0
0
PatientGrasshopper said:
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.
Inflation is a natural process of the economy as its a result of growth, it can't be avoided without the economy stopping.
 

Jaime_Wolf

New member
Jul 17, 2009
1,194
0
0
Thread caught the corner of my eye while watching Zero Punctuation (not the most entertaining episode in my mind). Read it all and decided to make an account just to reply.

Most of the lies that are themselves lies have been completely addressed, but the cause of the American Civil War discussion has ignored a few key details:

1) Upwards of 90% of people in Confederate states were indeed normal people, not slave-owners.
And the ludicrously wealthy white male slave-owners that made up a tiny percentage of the popula-OH WAIT.
The tiny population with nearly all of the economic and political power couldn't POSSIBLY have had a greater effect than the apathetic masses. Sure they could not possibly have come up with a justification to feed the public (state rights).
Moreover, I'd be willing to bet that most people who were surrounded by the rich slave-owners would probably be pretty happy keeping things the way they were. Many would benefit from all of the goods consumed by such large establishments and from the services required by them. So many, many others have an interest in seeing it continue.

2) People do not change. People were apathetic and unknowledgable then just like they are now. We've just become better at realizing and understanding how apathetic and undereducated most people are. How many people can you actually see taking up arms today over a political question of federal versus state rights? It's completely insane.
Take a modern example: People argue over abortion now and, generally speaking, the pro-life side tends to point out that it's an issue of whether judicial activism should be allowed (not all of them and I'm not saying whether this is right or wrong, completely different discussion). If war broke out over the decision, would you assume that it was over abortion or over judicial activism? People don't (and, consequently, didn't) care about political issues so much as the way those political issues affected THEM.
 

thenumberthirteen

Unlucky for some
Dec 19, 2007
4,794
0
0
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.
 

Katherine Kerensky

Why, or Why Not?
Mar 27, 2009
7,744
0
0
gh0ti said:
Greyfox105 said:
Here's another.
World War one didn't end until 1919.
which also throws out the 'fact' that 1919 was supposed to be the only year when there wasn't a war :|
That's surely just a technicality. The Armistice was signed in 1918. Since hostilities ended on that date, that's a more useful measure of when WW1 ended.
Doesn't anyone know?!! I said Earlier as a reply to someone else I wasn't talking about versailles/armistice.

It's not that well hidden, it's just they don't tell you what happened when hostilities with GERMANY ended.
who ever said it ended with germany and her allies?
 

PatientGrasshopper

New member
Nov 2, 2008
624
0
0
Pseudonym2 said:
Every American student should read Lies My Teacher Told Me.

Some (but not all) of ones I was taught.
1 Native American's bought Manhattan Island for a few beads. Technically true but the people who sold the land didn't own it.

2 Native American's didn't understand the idea of owning land. Some tribes owned land as tribe, not as individuals. They still knew they were cheating the other tribe.

3 Native Americans could not adopt to a western lifestyle. Many of adapt fine and even built Victorian mansions. That didn't stop Andrew Jackson from kicking them out though.

4 Thomas Jefferson bought a lot of land from Napoleon in the Louisiana purchase.
Napoleon didn't own the land. He just sold the right to invade it. The people living there didn't get a choice.


The fifth and biggest lie is lie of progress. In the 1860's blacks were slaves, the 14th amendment allowed the to vote, and in 1964 they outlawed segregation. This is assumed to mean that if we just sit back and relax, racism will fix itself.

Slavery only ended because of thousands of abolitionists and solders, and the 14th amendment and the Civil Rights act were only passed because of millions of protesters demanded it. Authority will never make any sort of progress without being forced to.
Oh thanks I will look that book up.
gh0ti said:
I'm thinking Hitler started to gain power in 33.
He was elected Chancellor in '33 but didn't gain his real power until he became Führer in '34[/quote]

The Chinese say WW2 started in 1937, and the Russians in 1941. It's pretty Eurocentric to claim a divine right to the 'true' start of WW2.[/quote]

Exactly, and there was also a War in Africa, so who can say when it started and at what point it became a World war.
Cheeze_Pavilion said:
TheSunshineHobo said:
The Great Depression was caused by a lack of involvement, as was our current crisis.
No, first of all, in about 1920 there was a crash and it was largely ignored and just let it be and it was eventually fixed on its own, then when the Great depression came,Hoover, followed by FDR tried to interfere and FDR's New Deal prolonged the depression.
That's a theory pushed by the Austrian school of economists and now promoted by the neo cons. They have a vested ideological interest in their theory being true. Even someone with as bona fide conservative credentials as Milton Freedman disagrees with that theory of the Great Depression (he believes something more like what TheSunshineHobo is talking about)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Great_Depression




You are correct, initially when the US was formed the states joined on the condition that they could leave if they wanted. Then the Constitution was written
Which itself violated the Articles of Confederation:

LINK [http://books.google.com/books?id=oyFpDS8p33sC&pg=PA413&lpg=PA413&dq=constitutional+convention+illegal&source=bl&ots=MRA2szh6dA&sig=PuQz4X86pZb5pLKR04upgdxOJVI&hl=en&ei=90NgSpyuNcSFtgeP6OjWDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8]
Alex_P said:
PatientGrasshopper said:
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.
You are unbelievably wrong about this.

"The Civil War was primarily about states' rights issues" is revisionist whitewashing introduced during America's disastrous early-1900s romance with the KKK.

The lead-up to the Civil War saw both sides flagrantly violating "states' rights" at every turn in order to push their own position on slavery.

Southern states were quite willing to use fugitive slave laws in order to force the return of escaped slaves. Clearly they valued the slaves over their "states' rights" doctrines.

People from all over the country flocked to Kansas to astroturf for their faction, giddily violating violating the actual "states' rights" aspects of the popular sovereignty doctrine in order to force their will upon Kansas.

Years before the Civil War, people were hacking each other to death with fucking swords over whether slavery would be established in the new state, and you really want to tell us that, no, the war happened for other reasons? Come on! "


Oh wait there was something I forgot to mention about the Great depression, it was largely caused by buying on credit, and this reckless spending was encouraged until people weren't able to pay off their credit, but the New Deal did nothing to fix the actual problem. Also, the Austrian School and Neo-cons are at odds, so I don't see how your claim makes sense.
http://mises.org/story/3186

As far as secession goes, the Confederacy was trying to act within the COnstitution to free themselves from the Federal Government
http://www.civilwarhome.com/statesrights.htm
 

Kl4pp5tuhl

New member
Apr 15, 2009
136
0
0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions

"Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation did not immediately free all American slaves, just warned the slaves would be freed in rebelling states on January 1. Since rebelling states did not recognize the power of the Federal government, few slaves were freed as a result of the Proclamation. Regions in the South that were under Union control when the Emancipation Proclamation was issued were not affected by it. These regions were: Tennessee, southern Louisiana, and parts of Virginia. The Thirteenth Amendment officially abolished slavery in all of the United States."

"Napoleon Bonaparte was not especially short, despite some belief to the contrary."

"Queen Marie Antoinette was not the first woman to whom the sentence "Let them eat cake" was ascribed. The phrase is first found in Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Confessions, of 1770, when Marie-Antoinette was fourteen. Countess Madame de Boigne recalls in her memoirs that Madame Victoire was "by no means clever, though extremely kind. It is said of her that during a famine, when the conversation turned upon the sufferings of the poor for want of bread, she said with tears in her eyes, 'But why cannot they put up with pie crust?'""

"Pong was not the first video game." (Just blew your mind there!)

Also, it wasn't a Meteor that killed the Dinosaurs, but huge volcanic eruptions that belched sulfur into the air.

The Bible is a book of fiction (possibly just an ancient lawbook with examples about ethics reflecting that time), end of story.

On a personal note:

Thomas Edison really was a prick, Tesla was awesome, and every religion is wrong.

The Roswell UFO was a balloon, the Loch Ness Monster, Sasquatch & Chupacabre a hoax.

Oh, right, and the Bloop [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloop] originated from Ryleh, Cthulu changed his sleeping position. Sleep well now.
 

1ronJ4m

New member
Feb 1, 2009
183
0
0
The explosion in Tunguz, 1908. june the 30th was a meteorite. How utter fools.
It was a STARSHIP FROM OUTER SPACE!
 

Brett Alex

New member
Jul 22, 2008
1,397
0
0
Warwolt said:
NeutralDrow said:
Communism and Anarchy are almost the same thing...
Or how about you learn something about those ideologies. Communism is an extreme leftist authoritarian state-model, Anarchism is just extreme liberalism.
... Or how about you learn something about those ideologies. Pure communism needs no government or classes, and anarchism needs no, lets say it together, government or classes.

Also, read this hunk of text.
Me from earlier in this thread said:
PatientGrasshopper said:
That did always confuse me yes. You see I think they were trying to combine two things that don't fit together very well. Anarchy in a pure sense is a society where there is no government whereas Communism has a government to enforce that everyone gets equal protions. Also as opposed to Communism, people have to work for what they get so no, in anarchy not everyone has the same because not everyone does the same work.
Ah, see, maybe its not a lie, maybe its open to interpretation. In the Manifesto, Marx never wished for strong government. Idealistically, he presumed the people would be willing to share things out equally themselves. This was where the Bolsheviks split from traditional communist values, stating that provisional and strict governmental control needed to be set up to create a transitional phase between aristocracy and true communism because the people could not be trusted to do it themselves.

In essence, the Anarcho-Communist society (Referring to Nestor Mahkno's work in the Ukraine here), said "bollocks to that, we can too trust the people," Pretty much, it was everyone getting equal things (hence the 'Communism') because thats what everyone wanted, and they didn't require a government to force them into it (Hence the 'Anarcho').

After all, the word 'Anarchist' means 'absence of judges', and loosely came to mean absence of government. Now it carries connotations of selfishness, lawlessness and depravity that aren't technically accurate.
 

Spitfire175

New member
Jul 1, 2009
1,373
0
0
lostclause said:
Umm, Lie one is wrong. They are left and right wing, they're just opposite in names and methods. Just because they have a couple of similarities doesn't mean they're not opposites (for example they're both governments!) Edit: If you don't agree with this comment please read the elaboration further down before commenting.
Lie two is also wrong. Europe was under soviet yoke for longer than just stalin, and even so 'better' is not something that can be measured in body counts. Also you're forgetting perspective, it was better for say Jews bacuase just about anything was better than the nazi's.
I was never taught 3 or 4 so I'll keep quiet on them.
Okay. You'vew been brainwashed, sorta. The political spectrum has 4 extreme ends: Communist, conservative, libertarian and anarchist. Stalinism is communism in practicality. (The difference between communism and socialism is that communism is a societal utopia, socialism is an economic system(its opposite is capitalism)) National socialism is NOT the opposite of communism or stalinist socialism. They are inversions of each other, mirror images, so to speak. Both systems support exteme goverment power, control religion, have a centalised power structure, control the economy and control all media. The funny thing that some beleve them to be opposites is due to the fact that fascism rose as a counter reaction to the rise of the communist Soviet union in the 20s.
Here's a diagram to elaborate: http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/axeswithnames.gif
I suppose you know who Friedman is, since you've dared to open your mouth here.

Next, to believe soviet controlled eastern europe was somehow better than nazi contolled, is crooked. You have heard of terrible ethnic cleansings commited by the SS, but not of the ones committed by the red army. Yes, Stalin and later Hurstsev, divided people by their roots, exterminated others, sent others to siberia, forced some to move to another counrty to break connections to their families. All this with only one goal in mind: creating the perfect human: Homo Sovieticus, the dull minded tireless worker with no will of its own and uttermost loyality to only one: the communist party. Now that sounds familiar, doesn't it? Yes, the "ideal human"- idea was similar in Nazism and Stalinism, only the Soviet was purposed to produce more tracktors, and the Fascist was supposed to be an obedient soldier. The model for a woman was a breeding machine in both systems.
You say it was better for the jewish communities? (or what was left of them). Well, consider this: the jews were often merchants or bankers, both professions deal with money and altogether have a strong idea on personal possessions. Pretty much opposite to the soviet idea of the division of wealth. All jews still remaining in soviet areas were stripped of their rights to do business or gain any wealth. Many of the jews had connections to the USA ant the newborn state of israel, due to migration after WW2. Thus, they were always suspects on the "enemies of the party"- list.
And even before uncle Joe had claimed all of eastern europe, in poland, he halted the advance of the red army before the gates of warsaw, so that the SS could exterminate the locals, who had started an uprising against the nazis, with hopes of allied help. Stalin, however, denied British and American planed carrying supplies and weapons access to soviet airports in Poland, so any help sent by the western allies never reached its destination. The red army stormed Warsaw only after the local jewish community had been wiped out, the rebellion liquidated and the SS retreated to the west. Stalin wanted the jews out of the way. Altogether soviet controlled areas were a hellhole, ethnic and polotical purges were committed widely by the party and freedom was dead. This is rarely spoken of, since the word barely ever got out. Plus, the Soviets just happened to win the war, so nobody bothered, and everyone was too busy bashing the germans. A similar occasion is the bombing of germany. The USAF and the RAF reduced many cities to rubble and thousands lost their lives. This was widely ignored, since uncle Sam too gave Adolf a whooping.
THe politically correct nonsense thaught in schools nowadays is dangerous. Go to your local library and seek the "history" section. If you want to learn, you have to find out for yourself
 

Standby

New member
Jul 24, 2008
531
0
0
bodyklok said:
You could argue that, until the USA began fighting in the east, it wasn't a 'world war' that included all of the worlds contents.
Or you could argue that North America was already involved in WW2 after Canada declared war on Germany back in 1939...