Lies they told you in history class

Sarah Frazier

New member
Dec 7, 2010
386
0
0
immortalfrieza said:
Glass Joe the Champ said:
So guys, what kind of lies, if any, did you learn in your history class?
That history class is important or even slightly relevant to anyone besides historians and people that work in museums. Basically, that history class has any justification for it's existence whatsoever is the lie.
Pretty much this, in my opinion. History class was only ever about memorizing names and dates long enough for the test, then immediately forget it in the mad cram to get through the next chosen chapter as quickly as possible. Very little has stuck and I can't remember any time when such information was vital in any way.

Then again... There is something to be said about learning the general history of politics, economy, and religion for the sake of not making the same bass ackwards mistakes made in the previous generation. Namely the bailouts in the USA that looks suspiciously like the trickle down economic plan that didn't seem to do much of anything in the Great Depression. If I could remember that much from a class I hated, why not the people who LIVED THROUGH IT?
 

zelda2fanboy

New member
Oct 6, 2009
2,173
0
0
The falsity that George Washington Carver invented peanut butter. He invented peanut oil, not peanut butter. I've heard this in every class he was mentioned in all the way from 1st grade to college.

It's not really a "lie" per se, but I've noticed that history class tends to focus more on the atrocities committed by the Nazis and Soviets before, during, and after WWII, but they hardly ever mention the shit that Japan did. Every time I bring up the Rape of Nanking or the Bataan Death March in WWII discussions, people act like they don't know what I'm talking about.
 

Knife

New member
Mar 20, 2011
180
0
0
C. Cain said:
Porygon-2000 said:
Czechoslovakia may disagree with you on the Poland point (...)
According to his/her definition of invasion it doesn't count as long as there's no armed resistance/ declaration of war.
Porygon-2000 said:
Czechoslovakia may disagree with you on the Poland point, and it wasn't really a democratic election that got Hitler into power. President Hindenburg got coaxed into letting the man into the position of Chancellor, thinking he could be easily controlled. And really, what could have possibly gone wrong?

Personally, I've had a couple of History teachers over the years, and while one of them was a bit lax with the learning, I learnt a huge amount in Years 11 and 12 about WW2, essentially covering 50 years of German History (at this point I should mention I'm Australian). We covered the Eastern front in a large amount of detail, covering everything from the siege of Stalingrad to the fall of Berlin. Overall, I'd say history was one of my better subjects.

Now English, on the other hand was excruciating. My teacher was a ditz who made me ruin Blade Runner for myself by making me dissect it thoroughly, understanding none of what I was saying, and gaining nothing from the experience.
Pretty much what C. Cain there said - let me quote myself here, just in case you missed it.
Knife said:
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.
Otherwise we might as well give that title to Austria, seeing as how the Anschluss came first.

Edit: Also on the account of Hitler and the nazi party - by 1933 the nazi party held over 40% of the seats in the Reichstag (democracy at work and all that), so yeah I'm certain it influenced Hindenburg's decision (just as in democracy today the head of the party with the biggest amount of votes gets to be president/prime minister... - may change from country to country).
 

zelda2fanboy

New member
Oct 6, 2009
2,173
0
0
immortalfrieza said:
History classes are, in my opinion, just another one of the largely useless subjects and classes that are taught in basic school, and that should be phased out in favor of ones that are, and the money saved from doing so be put towards allowing everyone to get a college education without having to pay through the a!^ for it.
Maybe if our leaders had taken more history classes, they would have had the perspective to see why invading Iraq was probably a bad idea and much more difficult than they had anticipated. Or maybe history class could teach us why "I was just doing my job" is not an admissible excuse. Or maybe why Israel is not the safest place in the world to be in. Or maybe it could tell us why we hardly ever see Native Americans anymore. Or it could give us some insight in why the US Mexico border isn't particularly sound. Or why creating immigration quotas of a particular ethnic group could be considered racist. Or why it's not okay to lock up innocent civilians you think might be dangerous due to some foreign conflict. Or why we really can't invade Canada. Why gas is so high. How we have electricity, national parks, cars, highways, etc.

And to understand why eliminating a subject in our public school system would have no effect on the cost of attending college.
 

JdaS

New member
Oct 16, 2009
712
0
0
In Portugal there was of course the countless glorious tales of discoveries of foreign lands. The exploitation and destruction of the indigenous populace was just an unfortunate (if lucrative) side-story.

Finland will probably never get over the fact that they "won" the Winter War against the USSR. The godawful peace terms and certain political ploys and backstabberies as well as teaming up with Nazi Germany are largely downplayed and the "We beat the Russians!" part is hammered deeply into the collective psyches of the Finnish youth.

Not so much lying as it's manipulating certain facts to make the overall product look a tad more glamorous. Every single country does it to varying degrees, I guess.
 

Sean951

New member
Mar 30, 2011
650
0
0
Not so much lies as omissions, but I was a history nut and watched the History Channel a LOT. Keep in mind, this was before it was the Jesus, Alien, and Hitler channel.
 

Beliyal

Big Stupid Jellyfish
Jun 7, 2010
503
0
0
SidingWithTheEnemy said:
Murderiser said:
[...]
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.
I honestly never heard about that Phantom time hypothesis, but as an archaeology student, I cringe at such things. Let me explain a phew points so you don't have to worry about Charlemagne.

The basis of the hypothesis as stated on Wiki is the fact that there is no archaeological evidence. This is false. Archaeological evidence from that period is indeed scarce, but it exists, more than enough of it is here to testify of the existence of that period. There is, of course, specific context for that period, as it was very turbulent and dramatic. The beginning of the Early Middle Ages is marked by the fall of the Roman Empire (usually; there are other interpretations, but some general concesus is to say that the year 476. AD is the end of antiquity and the beginning of the Medieval period). The end of the Roman Empire pretty much set the world into chaos as all the institutions and laws that the Romans carefully installed around their empire were gone; there was no uniformity and wars started, as well as attempts for defence against barbarians. They are actually a key point here; they invaded Europe while Romans were still pretty much alive and Romans were the first to fight them, but eventually, the Migration period kicked in and everything fell apart. The so called "barbarians" were people from the east and the north, mostly nomadic, rarely with any true material possessions, oriented to conquering, pillaging and with little to no care about the "civilized world".

The first ones were the Huns, nomadic peoples originating somewhere in China presumably, who had nothing to build; there was a saying at the time that they literally live on their horses. They mastered horseback archery and were generally ruthless and disorganized which was horrible for the Roman armies to handle (they did win though, as one Roman general lived with the Huns when he was a boy and he learned their ways which he could use against them). Anyway, after them, there were the Vandals, the Goths, the Gepides , the Lombards, Avars, Alans, later on Slavs, Bulgars and many many others. We have archaeological evidence for all of them, although it's mostly from graveyards. They didn't build cities or any kinds of settlements; they occupied what was already there, while the natives didn't really have time to build anything on their own as they were too busy fighting for their lives and hiding behind walls and fortresses from antiquity. That's why there's no sudden change in architecture, which usually is the most evident point about the change of the period. However, we have many other types of material evidence; certain things started showing up only after the Migration period, mostly best seen from small artefacts like fibulae (change in styles, shapes and types of decoration). In archaeology, sometimes, the smallest of things have the most value in terms of determining where they came from and how much the times have changed.

To completely ignore all the things that have been found about the period (not to mention the historical evidence as in written words; there are excellent sources from that time like Jordanes, who wrote about the Goths), and to ignore even some instances of their architecture (Theodorik, the king of the Ostrogoths who took over the rule in Italy built something after all) only shows how little about that period that guy, who proposed the hypothesis, knows. Seriously, the hypothesis has no basis in reality, no matter how interesting it might be. To even remotely propose that people like Charlemagne did not exist is a prime example of ignorance. Charlemagne was a key figure in restoring the civilization back to Europe after "barbarians" moved in and completely destroyed stuff left by the Romans. He brought back the civilization; it is not called the "Carolingian Renaissance" for nothing. Denying his existence is truly pointless as we're not talking about period without writing or without any evidence whatsoever; there's tons of material evidence that not only prove the existence of the period, but actually make quite a bit of a mess when we try to determine which ones are good and which ones are merely Medieval gossips and fantasies.

Also, it's not "astrological" evidence; it's "astronomical". And while carbon dating is not infallible, it is often tested on multiple objects and it is not applied on its own; when dating an object, scientists try to apply as much methods possible to ensure that multiple methods provide with similar dates. So if ten objects give the same dates after two or more dating methods applied on them, then we can be sure that the dates received are correct. Dating is never done by taking one object and carbon dating it, and then just taking whatever date it gave us and assuming it's truth. Many things can affect carbon dating (and other methods) so multiple methods are always applied, to multiple objects.
 

need4snacks

New member
Aug 4, 2011
33
0
0
I think the biggest problem with any class (at least here in Texas) is the tests. In almost any class I have had either a State Standardized Test or an AP test, (sometimes both). We are taught information that is going to be on the test (subjects that probably won't be questioned on the test are rendered somewhat irrelevant and we move through those lessons quickly), we are given strategies to take these tests, we spend lots of time in class to learn how to write essays for these tests. History class is no different.
It's all centered around passing the test, not learning the material. After the test date has passed and we've all taken it, the class becomes really relaxed over the rest of the year, watching semi-relevant movies and making easy 100s until school's out. Obviously if you study for a test about the material you're going to learn about that course - but I feel like I would be learning so much more if I was being governed by the teacher or myself, not the tests.

That's my explanation for generalizations anyhow. I don't know so much about lies though unless it's just due to simplification or a minor discrepancy. I am an American and I learned full well about slavery, Imperialism, and Red Scares in the United States. So the "Grr, the man is distorting history!" Stuff doesn't really have my sympathy.
 

SidingWithTheEnemy

New member
Sep 29, 2011
759
0
0
@ Beliyal
That is all good and true. A well done analysis. Still the Phantom time hypothesis has some quite convincing bits about that I have difficulties to neglect. I'm not going to elaborate because I find conspiracy Theories lacking and I'm not even in favor of his hypothesis so yeah, you are right. I don't want to lose 300 of the most fun years of history to Mr. Illig ideas.
 

Moonlight Butterfly

Be the Leaf
Mar 16, 2011
6,157
0
0
One of my favourites is that british schools teach that slaves built the pyramids, they didn't. The majority of the construction was used as job creation for ordinary people during the times of flooding along the nile when people couldnt farm as normal.

There is even records of people getting the day off for their birthday. :|

I think people just get fed a load of rubbish until they are in university...
 

Sizzle Montyjing

Pronouns - Slam/Slammed/Slammin'
Apr 5, 2011
2,213
0
0
Glass Joe the Champ said:
Oh god that voice... i hate that voice so much...
And this is the only video i've watched with that voice.
JUST MAKE IT STOP!!!

Anyway, biggest lie... probably that history was hard.
I found it piss easy.
:p
 

Shoqiyqa

New member
Mar 31, 2009
1,266
0
0
Sarah Frazier said:
Namely the bailouts in the USA that looks suspiciously like the trickle down economic plan that didn't seem to do much of anything in the Great Depression.
Funnelled a whole lot of taxpayers' money to the rich guys who sponsored the election campaign, though, didn't they?

...

zelda2fanboy said:
Maybe if our leaders had taken more history classes, they would have had the perspective to see why invading Iraq was probably a bad idea and much more difficult than they had anticipated.
Playing Age Of Conquerors fora week would teach you that. Playing RISK would teach you that.

I agree, actually, as may be implied by my huge post on page 5.

I just like to point out that it wasn't just stupid, immoral and illegal but monumentally stupid, utterly immoral and entirely illegal when the occasion arises.
 

Naeo

New member
Dec 31, 2008
968
0
0
That the Boston Massacre was totally undeserved and a wholesale slaughter of innocent, peaceful protestors.

Who happened to be throwing rocks and death threats at a few British Soldiers who were fearing for their lives at that point.
 

luckycharms8282

New member
Mar 28, 2009
540
0
0
There is a lot of misinformation about WWII. In history class back in high school, we learned that Germany shelled a lot of southern Britain, but I did not learn till later that Britain bombed a lot of German towns, killing thousands of civilians.

Also, Hitler and Mussolini were both religious individuals. They were not athiest, which many believe for some reason.
 

Kurtiss Penman

New member
Nov 2, 2010
9
0
0
Well there is the part in early American history in elementary and junior high school where you are told that blacks were captured like the humans in planet of the apes by "evil white people" to be slaves, then in high school and parts of college you find out that that around two thirds of them were already slaves in there own country and were just sold by neighboring tribes, But is some liberal classes you go back to the evil planet of the apes idea.
 

Shoqiyqa

New member
Mar 31, 2009
1,266
0
0
luckycharms8282 said:
Hitler and Mussolini were both religious individuals. They were not athiest, which many believe for some reason.
Many atheists, or many religious people who like to feel superior to atheists?
 

Valdus

New member
Apr 7, 2011
343
0
0
My history class seemed pretty accurate. In fact when teaching Scottish History the teacher was smart enough to just say "Okay everyone, here's what Mel Gibson got wrong in Braveheart". Apparently it was a lot more than having a place in the background.
 

wilsontheterrible

New member
Jul 27, 2011
101
0
0
GZGoten said:
still what benefit does US get from it? do they give us $ or soldiers or anything worth the while? or are they more of a liability. Don't get me wrong I appreciate The Mars Volta and Coheed & Cambria as much as the next guy but I just don't see the benefit for us as a country, and in that matter although to a lesser extent Hawaii too
Puerto Ricians are U.S citizens, they pay U.S Federal taxes, and enroll in the U.S military. There are actually a lot of noteable military officers from Puerto Rico and have made a name for themselves by routinely serving on the front lines in every conflict from WWI to the present day conflicts. Five have received the Congressional Medal of Honor and several have gone on to become generals and admirals.

So yeah, Puerto Rico pulls its weight pretty well.
 

luckycharms8282

New member
Mar 28, 2009
540
0
0
Shoqiyqa said:
luckycharms8282 said:
Hitler and Mussolini were both religious individuals. They were not athiest, which many believe for some reason.
Many atheists, or many religious people who like to feel superior to atheists?
Wut. Poor wording on my part. There are many people who like to believe the two were atheists, is what I meant.
 

thevillageidiot13

New member
Sep 9, 2009
295
0
0
That American ideals and cultural beliefs are all perfect and untouchable; that they transcend human error. And that, no matter what, America (both its politicians and its citizens) does everything for the greater good. This includes the systematic murder and oppression of the Native Americans, the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings, Executive Order 9066, and Operation PBSUCCESS.

Seriously. That's the shit they drilled into my head for the first 12 - 14 years of my life. I'm a History major in college now, and my objective in life is to make sure that future generations don't grow up to be as ignorant and blindly pro-American as I did.

The Black Panthers made a big deal out of "true" history, as opposed to the "white American" history so often taught in our elementary and high school textbooks. Indeed, the absence of a history is a tool of social oppression, just as the presence of a history is a tool of social justice.