Lies they told you in history class

chadachada123

New member
Jan 17, 2011
2,310
0
0
This isn't history class, but I remember arguing with the teacher and the entire class because he said that the moon doesn't rotate while simultaneously saying that the moon always has the same side facing the earth. The latter statement means that the moon DOES rotate, with a period of rotation equal to the period of revolution.

But I digress. Anyway, the whole Columbus thing, and thinking that the earth is flat. We also never really went deep into the American Civil War or the reasons for it, which go a lot deeper than "the South had slaves." For that, they never outright-lied, just omitted a LOT.
 

MadMechanic

New member
Nov 6, 2009
385
0
0
Love history, always have.
Lies (my) history (teachers) told me...
Actually, having gone to a grammar school, years 7-10, my history was pretty good. The staff could decide what history they taught - rather than the national carriculum. Also helped that all our history teachers loved their subject, and the departmental head was a published author.

Then we get to GCSE and the national history course (OCR).
Too many to mention, but I'll just say OCR failed to mention (our coursework was on WW1, whilst the exams were International Relations 1919-1941)The British and Turkish casualties at Gallipoli, The Vich French, how many Russians Stalin not Hitler had killed, the classic Germans=Nazis + Nazis = Germans, failing to mention Nazi (or similar fascist movements) in other nations...


A Level wasn't that bad.
For example -
People speaks as if the 1917 October Revolution in Russia was a bloody event, with Lenin's masterplan creating a bloodbath as the Reds brutally murdered their way into power.
In actual fact:
A series of cockups by the Provisional Government of Kerensky and the other Political parties allowed the Bolsheviks to be in the perfect position to take power. With the Kornilov Affair alienating the army, and the Bolsheviks now being armed (after Kerensky released them from prison), no-one was willing to defend the government.
As for the bloodshed? Accurate numbers suggest the bloodshed was between 5-10. All of them friendly-fire incidents...
 

Justanewguy

New member
Jun 30, 2011
97
0
0
Aidinthel said:
Justanewguy said:
Fellow history student here, and I know what you mean. I'm tempted to write up a much larger post replying to all those people but It's after 1 AM and I have class tomorrow. Don't blame them too much: the subject is rather complicated and those who haven't dedicated themselves to it can't really be expected to know it very well for the same reason I can't do calculus. Of course, me not knowing calculus doesn't affect anyone but myself, whereas poor knowledge of history affects political decisions...

Anyway, my point is that you should take such things as a teaching opportunity rather than simply railing against their ignorance.

And maybe take the time to calmly explain to that guy why he is wrong rather than simply declaring him an idiot. (Which, admittedly, was my first impulse as well.)
You're right, I probably should have taken more time in that post. My point was more that people shouldn't simply grasp on to a counter opinion to what they had been taught and assume that it's automatically right, which is what I saw happening. There were so many problems in so many posts that I didn't feel like I had the time or patience to properly address every fallacy, and missing a fallacy or failing to challenge (in my mind, at least) seemed to legitimize it.

In reality, I'd urge all readers to study History, read the primary accounts rather than the secondary or (in many cases) tertiary explanations provided by History text books. This isn't even a simple "left vs right" issue. Every teacher, every school, every book has a bias, and in many cases the only way to get to the truth of the matter is to read every single interpretation of the event. In many cases finding the absolute truth is impossible as the event has been so skewed by time (although in modern history it's a bit easier as there has been less time to lose the truth of the events).

All of this said, I maintain that anyone who thinks History is useless IS an idiot. It may not be gripping, it may not be fun, but it is certainly important. There is a reason that many people repeat the phrase "Those who do not learn from the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them." That phrase is very true.
 

C. Cain

New member
Oct 3, 2011
267
0
0
Knife said:
While indeed not all germans were nazis, the first country to be invaded by nazis was Poland in 1939 unless we count the Anschluss (the annexation of Austria) back in 1938, the nazis at no point invaded Germany (though there were a couple attempts at revolutions), Hitler/the nazi party were democratically elected fair and square back in 1933 (though they did some horrible and undemocratic things along the way).
Eh? What about Czechoslovakia? Or more specifically the Sudetenland portion of said country? It's technically a seperate event from the Anschluss.
 

chadachada123

New member
Jan 17, 2011
2,310
0
0
Squilookle said:
Glass Joe the Champ said:
Xmaspast said:
Don't forget that the Lusitania was carrying ammunition. They never told us that in school. They always tried to make it seem like the Germans just upped and sank an ocean liner for the hell of it.
As proof of ignorance, I didn't know that till you posted that. You re-learn things everyday I guess.
Wow wow hang on a second, was that ever confirmed? I remember some theories stating the second explosion was coal dust in the next storage area- was this ever disproved?
Going off of Wikipedia, the second explosion was NOT because of the ammo, but they were carrying a few million rifle rounds, which are classed as non-explosive. On top of that, the coal dust is, according to Wikipedia, too damp to have been the cause of the second explosion as well.
 

pumuckl

New member
Feb 20, 2010
137
0
0
richetensor said:
rayen020 said:
i don't know that i ever learned any lies because i've always had an interest in history and usually fact checked anything taught to me. something that has always interested me though is how the history syllabus usually went for me though. (this is in the US)

Learning period of six weeks
1)native american studies
2)american colonization and revolution
3)the US consitution/1780-1811
4)1815-1860
5)1870-1914
6)1919-1939/civil rights movement

ummm... not to complain but aren't we missing a couple of really major events on here? like world/nation changing events? oh yeah and i suppose i got the old oversimplification of the American Civil War being fought because of slavery.
Actually, that is not much of an oversimplification. You often here about the Civil War being fought over the issue of States' Rights, but if you refer to contemporary documents (the "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union" being the least subtle of these), you find that the specific right at issue was the right to own slaves. You sometimes hear that cultural differences contributed to?or were even the cause of?the Civil War, but much of the modern 'dixified' Southern culture developed during and after Reconstruction. Prior to the Civil War, there were relatively few significant cultural differences between the North and South (slavery aside). Indeed, this lack of cultural distinction is often credited with the destruction of Southern morale during the period from 1863-64. As the exigencies of war forced the Confederacy to dismantle the institution of slavery, to the point of offering black slaves freedom in return for military service, the South?or rather, its people?having lost the very thing it was fighting for, also lost the will to continue fighting.

The myth of the Lost Cause is just that - a myth. The Civil War was fought over the right to continue owning slaves, as the Confederacy itself readily admitted at the time.
um, the south was farm land mostly made up of indentured servants, slaves, and plantation owners, while the north had mostly "middle class" factory workers, they had different predominant religions, different set up of local government,different evolution of speach, they are by all definitions different cultures. plus, it was a huge jockying of powers between the north and the south, which were basically different countries at the time. With the 2/3 count on slaves, the south was set to swamp the north in representatives. If you really think all those 1800 era white people on the yankee side where fighting for slaves, ur as wrong as could be. Hell we'd hardly fight for blacks 100 years later.for the southern leaders though, it's just hard to go infront of a crowd and say "now we need more power just for powers sake, go die for it alright? great" when you could just say you're fighting for freedom... again... it's an occuring theme, america distorting our reasonings for war...

on topic, i love american history just for the blatant propaganda. we won wwII singlehandedly, the british were pricks and deserved a rebellion, JFK was a great president, hell we're the country that tried to hide the fact our president had polio. My favorite though isn't something that we're told, it's the things we're not told. your basic american history curriculum overlooks a dozen wars we fought in that made us look like right pricks
 

Chased

New member
Sep 17, 2010
830
0
0
chaosyoshimage said:
Everything about Thomas Edison. That dude stole nearly all of his inventions from the real genius Nikola Tesla. Hell, he impeded Tesla's progress in various fields, such as his work with alternating current. But did they teach us any of that? Nope it's the tired Edison invented the lightbulb shtick...
I heard that Nikola Tesla wanted to desperately work with Edison so Edison agreed and made Tesla do all of his gardening work. At least Tesla had David Bowie play him in The Prestige, beat that Edison!
 

Monkey lord

New member
Jun 25, 2011
45
0
0
one of my elementary teachers once said that during the cold war there where no actuall wars where the soviet union or the USA supported one side against the other. I never took that teacher seriosly again.
 

sanatloc

New member
Aug 29, 2011
9
0
0
Many people believe that the American war of independance was started for precisely that reason (independance). However there is evidence that Washington and the Generals infact wanted to stay part of the Empire and even toasted the health of Britain over dinner. They were only opposed to the king, who lets face it was completely insane. (see the book: America Empire of Liberty, yes I know the Author is British but the book is well researched)
 
Aug 17, 2009
1,019
0
0
That there were bad guys and good guys in post-Napoleonic Wars.

Yeah, Austria was so bad with its liberalizing, pluralizing society with no Colonies to brutally suppressed.
 

go-10

New member
Feb 3, 2010
1,557
0
0
hmm all I know about history is that when Americans went to Puerto Rico, known at the time as San Juan, the natives gave them housing and proposed they poison the water and animals that Spaniards were eating so that when the Americans invade they wouldn't have to worry too much.
They did just that and ever since America has kept hold of the island, back then it was a good strategic point. I don't know why they still keep it today

ANYWAYS in history class they told me that Spaniards weren't a threat to US troops but they never really explained why or that the US didn't really do anything except wait for the natives to take care of the Spaniards. Or that the natives were using biochemical warfare... not as developed as we have today but still effective
 

aashell13

New member
Jan 31, 2011
547
0
0
Squilookle said:
Glass Joe the Champ said:
Xmaspast said:
Don't forget that the Lusitania was carrying ammunition. They never told us that in school. They always tried to make it seem like the Germans just upped and sank an ocean liner for the hell of it.
As proof of ignorance, I didn't know that till you posted that. You re-learn things everyday I guess.
Wow wow hang on a second, was that ever confirmed? I remember some theories stating the second explosion was coal dust in the next storage area- was this ever disproved?
I believe the bit about ammo being onboard comes from shipping manifests declassified after the war, irrespective of whether said ammo contributed to blowing the ship up.
 

aashell13

New member
Jan 31, 2011
547
0
0
Never did talk much about the indians (native americans). Must have been a terrifying few hundred years for them; new plagues wiping out most of your population, and then waves of strange new people overrunning your land and forcing you inexorably westward.
 

Evil Alpaca

New member
May 22, 2010
225
0
0
One of the biggest myths taught in United States History class is about the importance of the colonies. My early middle school teachers made it out as if the American colonies were a fabulous gem in the British Empire when really, it was a backwater that England wasn't too distraught over losing.

England tried to trade its gains in the seven years war (French and Indian war for the U.S.) back to France for one small island in the Caribbean. France said no, wasn't worth it.

Also, George Washington was not a brilliant general. He lost most of the battle he fought in. Really, American independence was won be because England felt it wasn't worth having so many troops tied up in an unending campaign with a backwater fighting force thousands of miles away. (that sounds kinda familiar...)
 

pumuckl

New member
Feb 20, 2010
137
0
0
Satsuki666 said:
Tell me do they teach you why the white house is white?
no they do not, though we're not really sure if there was a reason the white house was painted white
 

Knife

New member
Mar 20, 2011
180
0
0
C. Cain said:
Knife said:
While indeed not all germans were nazis, the first country to be invaded by nazis was Poland in 1939 unless we count the Anschluss (the annexation of Austria) back in 1938, the nazis at no point invaded Germany (though there were a couple attempts at revolutions), Hitler/the nazi party were democratically elected fair and square back in 1933 (though they did some horrible and undemocratic things along the way).
Eh? What about Czechoslovakia? Or more specifically the Sudetenland portion of said country? It's technically a seperate event from the Anschluss.
Yes there was also Czechoslovakia following the Anschluss in 1938, but similarly to Austria there was no military conflict involved. The other nations thrown them to the dogs. And Czechoslovakia basically gave up on that territory.
So I stand by my previous statement that Poland was the first country to be invaded by the nazis.
 

redisforever

New member
Oct 5, 2009
2,158
0
0
jonyboy13 said:
Important to mention, I live in Israel.

The amount of BS they shove in our brains as kids is huge even compared to America.
Obviously, we were taught the Israeli side of the whole Middle East thingy, but we were never taught the other side (not that it's MOSTLY right, but still should've learned it)

My biggest problem is not that we were lied to, but that we didn't even learn about most of the important history, and if we did it was brief, not in high school or in important tests.

Barely about WW1, only about the holocaust and not WW2 in general, not about anything important in Europe, not AT ALL about the US. We were basically taught only about Jews in the world, in every possible country.
I was born in Israel, left when I was 6, so I didn't have history there, but that's pretty much my Canadian history class right there, just substitute Canada for Jews. I did have a good teacher, not his fault the curriculum is stupid.
 

Sexy Devil

New member
Jul 12, 2010
701
0
0
octafish said:
That, when white people colonised Australia the indigenous population just sort of evaporated.
Wait, you seriously got told that? I've been getting the "you're white so you should feel bad about this stuff you didn't do" crap since primary school.