Lies they told you in history class

[Pat8u]

I knew all of that by year 2. Either he pays no attention in class or he's trolling.
Canberra, A.C.T.

Wow, you're lucky, I had to wait until year 9 and 10, and even then learnt most of the White Australia Policy from history majors and university :-( teaches me for going to a rural public school.

yeah, i'm 19 and i can honestly say i have no idea what WW1 was about, accept that it was apparently started (sort of) when some guy assassinated some toher guy... as for the stolen generation, to be fair we studied it for like... a day, when kevin rudd apoligised (for not he nor anyone alive today was responsible for thus the apology meant nothing)
it can't help that the highschool i attended tied with some other highschool as worst in the ACT when they ran that test a few years ago.

That really sucks. I do think Australian history is pretty dry and boring (no civil war or quest for independence) but I do think everyone should know the history behind their country. Even if you stay clear of the Whitlam dismissal, you should learn about the Stolen Generation and the White Australia Policy, kind of makes me ashamed of this country, but also makes me determined to stamp out the last of the racism in this country if I ever get the chance.

hold hold on boring... your probabley not up to the part with the cannible convict
the way my teacher told that was fantastic

Judge:Where are the other prisoners
Convict: I ate 'em

 

[SidingWithTheEnemy]

[...]
This must be troll. I mean, seriously? No historian takes that theory even REMOTELY seriously, seeing as it is contradicted by astrological records, the passing of Halley's comet and that little thing known as CARBON DATING.

Personally I don't put that much faith in carbon dating and astrological records that always took the Middle Age for granted
Anyway I'm not interested in convincing anyone. It's just an interesting theory I find noteworthy, I would sorely miss Carolus Magnus though so I'm against it, too.

 

[Uskis]

I had a discussion in History in high-school on wether or not the welfare system in my country was based on the christian values of loving the next of kin, or a result of the politicization of the working class in the unions after 1871 and rise of the socialists and social-democrats. My teacher was conservative, but it wasn't so much lies as discussions based on different readings of history. She was pretty cool and always tried to engage the class in discussions without presenting things in black/white

 

[Pat8u]

America sounds like a confusing place to live in
then again so do a lot of places

 

[Uskis]

Norway, Denmark and Sweden have been in several "unions", though they usually involved Norway and either Sweden or Denmark. This was in the 1600s or so.

I'm half Danish and half Norwegian. We learned in our Norwegian school that we were in a union with Denmark, while my mother says that she was taught that "Denmark owned Norway". I don't know which one is true, and I'm sure the lines were a bit blurry, but it is quite a big difference.

Yeah, danish history can be sort of nationalistic at times. Especially in the understanding that "we" were a super-power once (something that can easily be disputed if you look at the power-relations in the period). Being half-swedish I constantly had to listen to "yeah, but we owned half of your country and we are so much better than you"-bullshit. Funny how people forget they they got kicked out of south Sweden and the Copenhagen we're besieged a couple of times since then.

 

[KarlMonster]

Basically, that history class has any justification for it's existence whatsoever is the lie.

As a fun exercise let's assume you aren't in fact trolling. Please defend your statement.

A common defense of history class is the phrase "those who do not learn from the mistakes history are doomed to repeat it." However, this phrase fails to take into account that most people, for example, are not going to find themselves in situations to which knowing when the French Revolution happened and why is going to be in any way relevant.

As for the actual study of the past events themselves, a clear understanding of the past does wonders for understanding the present. To use an Americanized example: if you don't know your history you might very well end up assuming that everything CNN or FOXnews tells you is true, and that is a dangerous assumption to make. A clearer understanding of the world is never a bad thing.

A typical history class does not bequeath the context of events, and therewith the students fail to grasp a lesson for the future. Cursory details of the event is not enough. Knowing that ships collide does not prevent future collisions. Knowing what caused ships to collide in the past can provide working knowledge to prevent future collisions.

When a previous U.S. administration decided it was time to go beat up somebody, a small number of people who knew better included a Senator who remembered the Gulf of Tonkin incident that led to U.S. involvement in Viet Nam. That was also a fabrication used to enable a political agenda.

Earlier in this thread the U.S. civil war was mentioned, with its proximate causes of slavery and State's rights. That's not quite correct either. Southern political figures saw the election of a President was sympathetic to abolitionist groups, as a future threat to their 'rights' to own slaves. [You can decide for yourselves what income bracket the slave-owners belonged to.] Lincoln tried to give reassurances that there would be no Federal mandates regarding abolition. The political rhetoric only increased.

So after much political posturing and scare-mongering, the first southern states declared their secession from the Union - before Lincoln was sworn into office. This was not rebellion against an unjust law, it was merely indignation about something that could happen. If it was about State's Rights, where/what/when was the violation of their rights?

Too many Americans don't understand that the political polarization - that they can see firsthand - is precisely what brought us to civil war once already.

 

[Shazbah]

hold hold on boring... your probabley not up to the part with the cannible convict
the way my teacher told that was fantastic

Judge:Where are the other prisoners
Convict: I ate 'em

I'm finished studying history, finished high school 3 years
And I'm sure there are some interesting things that happened, but really it's just Federation, Two World Wars, Westminster Act, White Australia Policy, Whitlam Dismissal, Australia Act. Done.
I mean really? It's not that interesting, basically told the UK that we're now independent but we'll do as you say (Federation), then actually did something (Two World Wars), slowly ran our own country (Westminster Act and Australia Act) became less racist after being huge dicks (Stolen Generation and White Australia Policy) then the bloke who made us less racist got fired by the Queen (Dismissmal) and then nothing until now.

Ps I know I'm taking huge liberities with what actually happened, but that's basically it

 

[NotSoLoneWanderer]

Well Mr.Columbus and America's dickeshness towards the native Americans. I mean detailed dickishness because I when I was younger I was always curious about how my teacher and my textbook made it seem as if the Native Americans just rolled over and accepted American presence while slinking farther and farther back to the west and south. There's more to the lies but you guys should know right?

 

[Varanfan9]

That the biggest problem facing the continental congress in the revolutionary war was weather or not the situation could be made into a musical comedy. He then showed us the musical comedy based on the situation 1778. Yeah he is awesome.

 

[Airsoftslayer93]

Also, the Indian mutiny being caused, IIRC, the use of pig and cow fat in the cartridges. In reality, they replaced them to stop that being a problem, and the mutiny didn't start until some time later.

Aye, but rumors persisted which certainly aided to the mutiny.

rifling wasn't around until 1830. Armies needed to be close because rifles were more like shotguns. You cant snipe someone with a rifle back then because of how inaccurate it was. However, they needed mass volleys because firing one rifle hardly did anything. Firing in mass volleys compensated for poor accuracy because one of the those musket balls had to hit by rule of probability. The drums were actually a way to beat out orders to large amounts of soldiers who were drilled to understand what each drum beat sequence meant.

Rifling has existed since the 1500's, it just wasnt in common use in most european armies until the 1830's, the US militia during the war of independence extensivly used rifles and where notably accurate with them, and of coure the british greenjacket regiments were instrumental in the british victory in the peninsular. there are stories of british riflemen sniping french generals over a very great distance. And no, drums werent used for signalling orders (at least as far as i know in any european armies) they were used for setting a marching beat and for instilling discipline.

 

[Dethenger]

I think the biggest lie my teacher told me was when she was telling us about the Red Scare, which naturally meant she had to tell us what Communism was. Coincidentally, I was reading this [http://i43.tower.com/images/mm100523890/portable-karl-marx-eugene-kamenka-paperback-cover-art.jpg] at the time, and I was like, no...

 

[Bvenged]

No one's brought up Pearl Harbor yet? D:

Seriously, the United States pretty much bullied the Japanese into attacking us.

Yep, such as cutting fuel trade to the Japanese during the war, at the time they needed it most, when their sole supply of fuel was through the US. 'cus that's not going to set them off, right? Especially when the US claimed to be neutral but was setting up arms deals with the allies.

 

[Nyaliva]

I only really had history in highschool and I had an awesome teacher. He was really enthusiastic about it and loved persuing the truth. One term we spent entirely on conspiracy theories and we looked at things from all sides. We looked at all the for and against and he never said the truth was one way or the other, he just got us to look at the facts. He did point out some things which were widely accepted and wrong throughout the years and he spent a lot of time teaching us how to check our sources. I only had history for two years but I always wish I could've taken it longer (I had to take certain subjects for uni).

Anyways, love you Mr. Behan!! Me and Jess would love to catch up!
Andrew

 

[Susurrus]

SNIP

Yes but the sagas also mention a "Uniped".

 

[Bob_Dobb]

The French are noble war heroes.

The south lost the civil war *begins playing banjo*

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

http://www.cracked.com/article_18755_5-fictional-stories-you-were-taught-in-history-class.html
http://www.cracked.com/article_16101_the-5-most-ridiculous-lies-you-were-taught-in-history-class.html

I think those are relevant.

Anyway, when we read about stalin in history class, the books didn't say anything about what an evil dick he was. Okay some of it but not nearly all of it. Our teacher told us but still.

 

[Squilookle]

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?