Lies they teach you in HIstory class

[PatientGrasshopper]

I was taught that the US pledge of allegiance was started by the founding fathers and that it always had "under god" in it, which was added in the 50's. The pledge was really started by Francis Bellamy for any country that wanted to use it. It never mentioned the US before we put it in there, either.

Yes, I don't know if they told me directly when the pledge a written but it was implied under God was always there.
Also, they never tell you Francis Bellamy was a socialist, he even admitted to being one himself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bellamy

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.

Anytime I want to make an argument to take away the rights of people I don't like, I want it to be about some idea that is neutral on its face but has a bigoted intent behind it. If I can get people to believe a load of junk as big as the idea that the Civil War wasn't about slavery but was about states' rights, wow--I can use that 'states rights' bullshit anytime I want!

It works for the The South Will Rise Again folks. It's interesting to consider that if the war were to be re-fought for some reason, the North would still win for the same reasons it did before: greater financial resources and greater industrial capacity.

There is currently the Texas secessionist movement that the current governor Rick Perry has hinted at personally and other state hove them as well, but slavery is not an issue today. Another state, Alaska wasn't even around during the civil war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaskan_Independence_Party
Also, these two states are the top 2 producers of oil in the US.
Also here is an article on the legality of secession. It reiterates what I said about it being voluntary as no provision exists to disallow it.
http://www.texassecede.com/faq.htm

 

[PatientGrasshopper]

and most aren't even answering the topic.

Good! Answering the topic legitimizes the things the OP wants to push--why would we want to do that?

Answering the topic insures you are not throwing in straw men and red herrings.

One time, in 2nd Grade, I asked my teacher about the Holocaust in europe, and she told me that "I don't think that ever happened..."

What an airhead.

Was she ever a Nazi or a relative of one?

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.

good call

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.

That's odd, they usually teach otherwise, at least all my teachers did, but during the time Eisenhower was against the bomb.

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

If you thought it was outdated Glenn Beck has rewritten it for modern times, I think it is out now.
http://www.amazon.com/Glenn-Becks-Common-Sense-Control/dp/1439168571

*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.

To be fair, I think Cheese agrees. We're talking more the interpretation of "Separation of Church and State" and the First Amendment.

Oh, the part before all of the freedom stuff where it states "No law respecting the establishment of religion".

In fact I am feeling super generous today so I will supply you with a link, or should I just spoiler the video... nah, I shall link it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZLeWYkSPQ4&feature=PlayList&p=E2A228E858D7F91D&index=25

OK I have been staying out of this particular debate but now I would just like to ask how do you justify "Endowed by their creator"?

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.

I know this one is incorrect, Inflation happens automatically when the cost of living goes up, economic growth, changes in supply, and so on, there is too many conditions that causes it and it almost inevitable.

What he is trying to say is lets say on a gold or silver standard were we dont print money like we have been if there is only so much money and that stays the same then prices wont go up as much because people wont be able to afford it

Regardless, you'll still have inflation as long as we deal with money. The only way to not have an inflation, is to not have currency what so ever.

Even with silver or a gold standard inflation can happen, if a gold mine is found prices would go down, if an african guy goes around tossing jewels and gold to his peasants prices would shoot down.. Inflation happens when there is to much money in circulation, recession happens when not enough is moving around.

Note: Separation of church and state is most times misread.. When it was wrote he was expressing the thoughts that the government shouldn't meddle with religion.. Not from the church meddling with politics.

I know some inflation can occur but there is still only a limited supply of gold to be discovered but the government can print as much money as they want.
I think I agree with your separation of church and state assertion.

 

[OneBig Man]

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.

Your teacher sucked. Mine basically told us all this except thr first one. He pointed out the similarities but explained the differences.

 

[OneBig Man]

Also, who the hell taught everybody here. It seems everyones instuctors taught everybody lies yet mine basically covered everything everybody has been posting.

 

[PatientGrasshopper]

Got any proof OP? Anything at all about this? No? Ah. Interesting. I think I'll blindly believe you.

Hitler vs. Stalin
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/comparing_hitler_and_stalin/

In regards to inflation
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/haynes2.html

In regards to secession
http://www.texassecede.com/faq.htm
also look at the 10th amendment

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.

Actuallty mate, as a History/Political Science Double Major I feel a need to nick in and correct a few common mistakes and misconceptions regarding the Historical Record.

#1: Communism and Facism aren't the same. In fact, they cannot even be classified the same way because they are totally different structures: an economic and political system. Facism is a form of government. Communism is a form of economic policy. The Soviet Union existed as an Oligarchy and later a Despotism (I'll discuss this in a minute) while enforcing a strict Communist economy. There are such things as Communist Democracies, Communist Republics, and Communist Theocracies, but (like Jello and Band-Aids) people associate the product with the best known brand name: Communist Dictatorships.

#2: This one cannot be cleared up so easily as the first or third because you're establishing a qualitative inconstant as fact. This is really just a matter of opinion based upon what I'm assuming to be the personal prejudices of a(I'm just guessing here)a Caucasian, Yank male. Part of this thought of the Soviets being better then the Nazis may derive from the fact that the Soviets helped carry the Allies through World War 2, but I believe part of it may stem from the rationalization behind the killings. While Stalin's killings mostly derive from political reasons and more prominently from his acute paranoia (he had the psychiatrist who diagnosed him murdered as a conspirator against him), Hitler's derived from a drive for eugenics, committing genocide rationalized as the destruction of inferior humans and humanoid creatures.

#3: Since we established that you're probably a Yank (not anything wrong with that lad, I live in Atlanta now), we base this upon the United States fiscal policies and systems of your country. There was a time when we were on both the gold and silver standards, the value of the dollar went up and down based upon the success of the mining industry and the discorvery of mineral deposits. Now the currency is backed by nothing more then trust in the soundness of the banks and the economy. The issue of printing money is more complex an issue then simply doing or not doing it good/evil, it's an issue of power. Whether the debtor or debtee, the rich or the poor are served in either increasing or reducing the currency circulated. I could spend hours explaining the intricacies of the issue, but frankly I find economics understandable, but monotonous, so I'll leave it at that.

1. So than you would say it is possible for something to be both communist and Fascist?

2. I am just pointing out that they were both bad guys, as you said though Stalin is just viewed as a hero since he helped us.

3. Gold is more stable because it cannot be artificially created and when more is discovered it is not indefinite.

Yes gold is only worth what we say it is but it works on a natural upply and demand ystems, where as our money does not.

So? Why is "natural" necessarily any better than "man-made"?

However you should not prohibit someone from taking about their religion, there should be prayers in public school, just not sanctioned by the school, they should allow it for the kids who want to.

It is allowed:

Although the Constitution forbids public school officials from directing or favoring prayer, students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Community Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969). In addition, the Supreme Court has made clear that "private religious speech, far from being a First Amendment orphan, is as fully protected under the Free Speech Clause as secular private expression." Capitol Square Review & Advisory Bd. v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753, 760 (1995). Moreover, not all religious speech that takes place in the public schools or at school-sponsored events is governmental speech. Santa Fe, 530 U.S. at 302. For example, "nothing in the Constitution ... prohibits any public school student from voluntarily praying at any time before, during, or after the school day," and students may pray with fellow students during the school day on the same terms and conditions that they may engage in other conversation or speech. Santa Fe, 530 U.S. at 313.

http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org/prayer-in-public-school.htm

Natural is better because there is not an endless supply. So it levels out eventually, if we keep discovering gold we will eventually run out.
The prayer in public schools, I will give you that but there are still those who want to take that right away.

I don't know if it been said yet but here it goes.

George Washington was not the first president of the United States of America. There were 7 presidents before under the Articles of confederation. Washington is actually the first president under the constitution and our current governmental system.

Yea, in fact I still never learned about them in school, and cannot name them by memory. Although the system was different back then they are still worth a mention, we always ignore history that doesn't apply anymore even though it is still history.

Not quite how it works, think about the price of petrol. If one station increases their prices, another station will also increase their own prices - this ensures them higher profits, as the quantity of petrol demanded is still the same, yet the prices are higher. If prices rise on a good all the way across the board, then demand will stay the same, as compared to a situation where one company raises prices which in turns alters the demand for the product.

Also, inflation is measured by comparing the price of a "basket" of a few hundred different types of goods and services each quarter. If the price of one good included in that "basket" increases during that time, then the official inflation rate will still increase, due to the fact that the cost incurred to consume the good that has risen in price alongside those that have not is still higher. Like I said in my original post, the sources of inflation come mainly from the goods purchased with money, not from the source of the money itself. Sure there might be inbalances every now and then with the amount of money printed but on the whole it's maintained incredibly well. Governments very rarely "print" money in an effort to increase the amount of cash in circulation.

You should read up on your economics before you make those kind of statements.

Why would the first station increase their prices when they know that they could lose their customers to the other less expensive station?

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.

Anytime I want to make an argument to take away the rights of people I don't like, I want it to be about some idea that is neutral on its face but has a bigoted intent behind it. If I can get people to believe a load of junk as big as the idea that the Civil War wasn't about slavery but was about states' rights, wow--I can use that 'states rights' bullshit anytime I want!

It works for the The South Will Rise Again folks. It's interesting to consider that if the war were to be re-fought for some reason, the North would still win for the same reasons it did before: greater financial resources and greater industrial capacity.

Also here is an article on the legality of secession. It reiterates what I said about it being voluntary as no provision exists to disallow it.
http://www.texassecede.com/faq.htm

The Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.

Seems to me like you'd need something along the lines of an Amendment to explicitly authorize secession before you can make a case for it. I mean, even our country never claimed that our Declaration of Independence was a right guaranteed to it under Crown law--they admitted that they were going to "alter or abolish" the existing "political bands" under "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God."

There is an amendment, it is called the 1oth Amendment and if the Constitution does not explicitly state it that it is up to the states to decide.


Also I just remembered another major lie, they say Ohio was the 17th state. It was retroactively admitted in 1953
http://clerk.house.gov/art_history/index.html?action=view&intID=30

 

[JC175]

Not quite how it works, think about the price of petrol. If one station increases their prices, another station will also increase their own prices - this ensures them higher profits, as the quantity of petrol demanded is still the same, yet the prices are higher. If prices rise on a good all the way across the board, then demand will stay the same, as compared to a situation where one company raises prices which in turns alters the demand for the product.

Also, inflation is measured by comparing the price of a "basket" of a few hundred different types of goods and services each quarter. If the price of one good included in that "basket" increases during that time, then the official inflation rate will still increase, due to the fact that the cost incurred to consume the good that has risen in price alongside those that have not is still higher. Like I said in my original post, the sources of inflation come mainly from the goods purchased with money, not from the source of the money itself. Sure there might be inbalances every now and then with the amount of money printed but on the whole it's maintained incredibly well. Governments very rarely "print" money in an effort to increase the amount of cash in circulation.

You should read up on your economics before you make those kind of statements.

Why would the first station increase their prices when they know that they could lose their customers to the other less expensive station?

Obviously you've never had to buy petrol for a car, it happens all the time. Over here in Australia the price of petrol is cheaper mid-week, and each petrol station will rise its prices by the same amount over the weekend to ensure the maximum amount of return due to the rise in demand on those days.

There are plenty of reasons that the price of a good may be pushed up by its supplier, and usually when this happens all of the competing suppliers will also increase their prices to ensure higher profits at the same portion of their market share. Basically its an easy way for the companies to make money.

Not sure there's much more I can say on this, that is the way it happens.

 

[Verbose]

Maybe a night watchman state is more to your tastes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Watchmen_State

It seems unlikely. I'm a deeply authoritarian social contractualist who believes justice is punitive rather than preventative or rehabilitory.

Suffice to say, I don't see a lot of general support for my position. You mention you're a fascist and it's a very short countdown until Godwin's Law has ended the discussion.

True, permanent anarchy is paradoxical to the human race.

Mostly because their goals are illusory.

Okay, so that's a very unconventional perspective but I have reasoning. FREEDOM, as a grand concept, seems a bit incoherent to me. I parse it into two different things, Freedom From Constraint and Freedom From Responsibility, and these things are on opposite ends of a single scale.

Basically, I reason it thus. If you have total power, pure omnipotence, then each and every choice you make is purely yours. You can't be coerced or forced, there's nothing you are required to do. This means that you are responsible for each of your actions and their consequences, as well as your inaction and the consequences of that inaction. On the other end of the scale, if a being has absolutely no power then it is responsible for nothing. It can't be held accountable for its choices because it lacks the agency to make choices. Humans are limited, of course, being constrained by the nature of physical reality and such but the concept is easier to explain with the really deep extremes.

Anarchy is an incoherent position because they want no restrictions on their actions but can't reconcile that with their desire to not have to accept the consequences that inevitably arise from a lack of restriction. I am generalising, of course, because I've known some anarchists who are perfectly willing to accept the implications of their position but in general anarchists wish to be free to do as they like so long as nobody else is free to do what they might like to them. It's why so many anarchists will glibly agree that anarchy would only work with beings that don't much resemble humans in behaviour, which is why I have little respect for it as a political philosophy.

Not that this has a great deal to do with the topic. Still, the sheer number of high school anarchists suggests that somebody is getting lied to somewhere along the line and History seems as likely a culprit as any.

 

[DI7789]

Lie #Whatever: We know everything about recent history.

Proof: Look up.

 

[Agent Larkin]

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 :|

Also the Irish War of Independence was being fought in 1919 - 1921 so there is also that blow to the fact.
Irish History Curriculum
#1= Britain are responsible for everything that has gone wrong for this country. This is a lie as 99.99% of the time it is our fault. The other 00.01% being attributed to "Other".

 

[Spitfire175]

Hmm, you seem to overlook that Germany was guilty of many of the things you say the soviets did. Compulsory military service took place in Germany before the war even started (1935), dissidents were silenced by the gestapo and they encouraged emigration of Jews simply to get rid of them (before the holocaust began).
I think you summed it up perfectly by saying you wouldn't want live in either as they seem to be guilty of much the same crimes. Thanks for the info on the USSR by the way.

I didn't mean to overlook any unpleasantness in Nazi germany, actually I tried to say that both committed very similar human rights violations at about the same time.
(It's been a nice debate, btw)

 

[bushwhacker2k]

It sounds like a lot of people hate communism just because it is the form of government the enemies of their countries had... you can say otherwise but it won't change the fact that you would never ever give it a chance. Also, not saying I support communism, just making a point.

Anarchy is the opposite of government, anarchy is a lawless system, whereas government is all about laws.

This is all made somewhat meaningless with the fact that whoever wins writes history so they can make Hitler or Stalin or evil dictator #3 look much worse than they actually were.

 

[gh0ti]

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?

Such as? Germany's allies had all signed armistice agreements before the end of 1918 - the Ottomans, Bulgarians and Austro-Hungarians all stopped fighting before Germany.

 

[Katherine Kerensky]

Such as? Germany's allies had all signed armistice agreements before the end of 1918 - the Ottomans, Bulgarians and Austro-Hungarians all stopped fighting before Germany.

Yes, all of Germany's Allies

I'm going to stay evasive until someone figures it out

 

[TheFacelessOne]

Christopher Columbus didn't fucking discover North America. He thought he was in the Indies south of Asia. The first people from Europe to discover North America were the Vikings.

Yes.

 

[Spitfire175]

This seems like a pretty good explanation, and it still reinforces that Communism or socialism are not the opposite of fascism.

That's precisely what I've been trying to say in this thread. Along with the fact that the war winners write the history, just like Churchill said: "History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it". The winners of WW2 have pretty much had their way with this.
Also in every nation, the goverment of course wants the people to think highly of their history and leaders. The education is always under surveylance, dispite some talk about the freedom of speech, etc. And it is a lot easier to control large masses of ignorant people than those whu are highly educated. (NOT dissing the USA, here!) For example, in comparison, the results of US public schoos and, say, Finnish ones, are alarmingly different. (Look up, PISA- study)
When there are masses of people, it's best to keep their stomachs full and heads empty. When the population is small, it's for the best if everyone has a comprehensive understanding of the world.
The phenomenon is common: China, Russia, the US, all monitor very carefully what the yougsters are taught, mostly indeed in the history class. There will always be enough smart people to keep the things running.
And I'll stop there, before I insult anyone.

 

[EMFCRACKSHOT]

Have you been to a history class? 41 was when the US joined the war, not when it started. It started in 39 when Britain declared war on Germany after they invaded Poland. Hitler gaining power was not the beginning of WW2, he was elected long before (33 as I've been informed)

If you talk to the chinese, WW2 started in 1937 with the sino-japanese war. 1939 was just the opening of the european front

 

[Spitfire175]

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.

Quite right, since there is always more debt than actual wealth. Federal reserves make sure that new $$$ keep coming ans the nation (USA) gets more debt. Inflation is also a useful tool, if you have, say, hundreds of billions of debt. With accelerated infaltion it's easier to get rid of such a burden.

That doesn't make any sense. Ho doe debt stimulate the economy?

When there is debt, the federal reserve pumps more new money to the market. More money means more consumption. Consumption gives corporations a big money ejaculating hard on. All this works fine until someone wants some money back.

Exactly, until someone wants the money back, that is the issue.

My fellow Americans who think we've never lost a war, sorry to burst your bubble but read up about a little thing called the War of 1812.

Just another example of history being rewritten to be more favorable to one's own country. The Japanese do the same with WWII.

Nothing to add there, just pointing out the quotes and the people have mixed. New someone could think I'm american. Which I'm not. I write from a purely european point of view. (Not mocking americans here!)