Lies they told you in history class

Mawdern

New member
May 20, 2011
15
0
0
I, when I was in middle school, actually had a teacher that wanted to teach. She knew many things about our history in Canada. She didn't even need a book. It was all in her mind. "If you wanna know something about our history, just tell me!" she would say. And she would not call all Nazis terrorists like some people. She would say that they were fighting for their cause. Good times. Good times.

OT: The time they told us they talked french in Egypt. Dear lord.
 

Ulfrick

New member
Oct 14, 2010
36
0
0
Oh dear gods, I'm not sure if I could even list the historical fallacies they tried to pass of as "Fact" in my school. well at least for the first year and a half, afterwards they smartened up and realized that being a bible teacher did not qualify you to be a history teacher and brought in someone who actually knew what he was talking about (and if he didn't and I ended up correcting or questioning him he would take it good naturedly)

The one that sticks out the most to me though is the "discovery" of america by columbus and how he was the first european to "discover" the continent blah blah blah blah. disregarding evidence that it had been "discovered" previously by amerigo vespucci (who gave the continents their name) and even earlier than that by the vikings. What made it stick out even more to me was that I'm canadian, so columbus isn't even that important of a cultural figure here and we've had solid evidence for at least 50 years IN OUR OWN COUNTRY that the vikings where here first. yet that was never even touched on.
 

BlueMage

New member
Jan 22, 2008
715
0
0
Shazbah said:
octafish said:
Pat8u said:
I guess to be fair this was in the eighties, I only learnt about the massacres of the original Australians later through self guided reading.
That makes sense then, I was about to comment that I didn't really learn Australian history until high school and pretty much the first thing I learnt was the Stolen Generation and that we were dicks when we got here.
Also was pretty disgusted that the White Australia Policy existed right upto 1975. Made me less proud of this country, although I still love it I now know we're not perfect, which I think is the right way to teach a country's history
Beware: a fair bit of the history is being rewritten to suit a more ... palatable tale of white abuse. For example, texts written at the time to record happenings (including ships' logs) have been removed from some historical exhibits because the tale told doesn't match that which is politically correct.

White Australia Policy. Hmm, I remember seeing a video about it, not paying much attention, and then everyone getting outraged about one particular comment (done in a Father-knows-best-in-the-50s style of voice) - had the darnedest time trying to figure out what the outrage was about. Something about what can these people possibly offer to our land? Looking back, it's almost prohpetic. Anyways, we're doing so well with it now abolished.... when I walk down the street and 1 out of every 6 is not an immigrant, but an immigrant that flatout refuses to learn the language of this country, I wonder if we weren't better off with the White Australia policy in place. Sure as Hells, were I over there to live, I'd be forced in short order to learn the language.

The worst part? These folks are the minority. They really are. And they give every other immigrant a bad name, my family among them. An undeserved reputation for refusing to integrate. But for the actions of a few, half-heard beliefs turn into hostility.

Can I just point out that for all the Stolen Generation this and Stolen Generation that, the net result was that those "stolen" were able to integrate into the dominant culture. That's called a survival trait.
 

Shoqiyqa

New member
Mar 31, 2009
1,266
0
0
emeraldrafael said:
It wasnt my history class, and it wasnt so much a class at all, but whiel i was in another country doing some foreign student in britain stuff i was talking to a friend about vietnam and I guess some history teacher there heard us. Now this man was rather drunk by this point (no we were not in a bar or pub or whatever) and decided to tell me that it was all the US's fault.

to which I only kinda looked at him and brushed it off and he said he should know, hes a history teacher. To which i turned and said thats funny, cause Im pretty sure france just dropped that shit on the western world after they decided to go for the colossal fuck up int hat region.

...

Yes, the US could have handled it better, but france started shit they clearly could not finish and left in such a hurry that someone needed to do something.
According to the Vietnamese, they got left with Japanese occupiers after WWII and kicked them out themselves, and then the French came back like they owned the place so the Viet kicked them out too, carried on kicking them out despite the US joining in on the French side, kicked the US out, kicked the US-backed SVG out and then hopped the border to work off what was left of their frustrations by kicking the Khmer Rouge out (and replacing them with a relatively benign, sensible, genteel and honest communist government). Most of that gets glossed right over, doesn't it?

This may be a derailment but as we're up to page 10 I reckon it's fair enough: what could or should have been done instead in the late '40s and early '50s to get Vietnam a better few decades and a better position now, in terms of public health, prosperity, education and international standing? (Bonus points for citing historical precendents!)

Sean951 said:
Russia could have won with or without D-Day, but without the supplies it would have been a bit different.
I heard from someone that Allied C&C were in a hurry to get to D-Day because they didn't want the Russians to get any closer to those tempting Atlantic ports than they had to.

Second question with which to derail the thread: How differently would the 67 years since D-Day have gone if the Axis forces had figured out just how much better off Western-occupied Germany would be and how much nicer the US (not all that provoked), French (as long as you don't wreck the vinyards, they'll forgive you) and British (provoked or not, busy Being Gentlemen and jolly well Doing The Right Thing) would be than the very angry Soviet forces (see Leningrad, Stalingrad and so on) and had basically negotiated an orderly retreat and handover to the Allied forces and thrown everything into holding the Soviet front to get the Wall as far east as they could?
 

Supertegwyn

New member
Oct 7, 2010
1,057
0
0
Octorok said:
Supertegwyn said:
Gah! That video! My brain.... I think my IQ just dropped ten points!
The worst has yet to come - Firstly, that is only a short clip of the full episode.

Secondly, it's meant to teach children about US history.

Thirdly, the series also covers 9/11 and the War on Terror, The End of Communism, and the American Revolution.

It's a little nauseating. It's trying to indoctrinate a generation with, for lack of a better word, propaganda.

Oh! I got a Fourth one! The animators responsible for that are not on Death Row. Seriously. I could do better in Microsoft Paint.
There's MORE!?!?!?!?!?!?



I think a little of me just died inside.
 

WolfThomas

Man must have a code.
Dec 21, 2007
5,292
0
0
emeraldrafael said:
It wasnt my history class, and it wasnt so much a class at all, but whiel i was in another country doing some foreign student in britain stuff i was talking to a friend about vietnam and I guess some history teacher there heard us. Now this man was rather drunk by this point (no we were not in a bar or pub or whatever) and decided to tell me that it was all the US's fault.

to which I only kinda looked at him and brushed it off and he said he should know, hes a history teacher. To which i turned and said thats funny, cause Im pretty sure france just dropped that shit on the western world after they decided to go for the colossal fuck up int hat region.

...

Yes, the US could have handled it better, but france started shit they clearly could not finish and left in such a hurry that someone needed to do something.
Funnily enough I remember I had a history teacher from the USA (I live in Australia), who explained it as being just as much Britain's fault as France and the USA, as they were one of the biggest supporters both politically and militarily of France regaining Indochina after WW2. I don't necessarily agree but it was an interesting point.

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

Kathinka

New member
Jan 17, 2010
1,141
0
0
weeell, i went to school in the usa for a year (senior year highschool) so i got my fair share of stuff that made my teeth hurt.
like the brave little colonist armies fighting for their freedom against vastly superior english hordes. while in reality, the brittish forces struggled with supply and reinforcement problems and were usually outnumbered.
or of course the classic one: hugely overstating the role that the US played in the liberation of europe, potraiing it as if it could have never done without them and they saved the day. while in reality their contribution was minimal, almost neglectable if compared to england and especially the soviet union. of course one mustn't fill kids heads with storys where the evil communists are the good guys.

it made me sick to my stomach, honestly. but i ususally kept my mouth shut, i know a hopeless battle when i see one. as sickening as it is for anyone who has seriously studied a minimum of history.
 

Shazbah

New member
Apr 14, 2009
24
0
0
Pat8u said:
BlueMage said:
That makes sense then, I was about to comment that I didn't really learn Australian history until high school and pretty much the first thing I learnt was the Stolen Generation and that we were dicks when we got here.
Also was pretty disgusted that the White Australia Policy existed right upto 1975. Made me less proud of this country, although I still love it I now know we're not perfect, which I think is the right way to teach a country's history
Beware: a fair bit of the history is being rewritten to suit a more ... palatable tale of white abuse. For example, texts written at the time to record happenings (including ships' logs) have been removed from some historical exhibits because the tale told doesn't match that which is politically correct.

White Australia Policy. Hmm, I remember seeing a video about it, not paying much attention, and then everyone getting outraged about one particular comment (done in a Father-knows-best-in-the-50s style of voice) - had the darnedest time trying to figure out what the outrage was about. Something about what can these people possibly offer to our land? Looking back, it's almost prohpetic. Anyways, we're doing so well with it now abolished.... when I walk down the street and 1 out of every 6 is not an immigrant, but an immigrant that flatout refuses to learn the language of this country, I wonder if we weren't better off with the White Australia policy in place. Sure as Hells, were I over there to live, I'd be forced in short order to learn the language.

The worst part? These folks are the minority. They really are. And they give every other immigrant a bad name, my family among them. An undeserved reputation for refusing to integrate. But for the actions of a few, half-heard beliefs turn into hostility.

Can I just point out that for all the Stolen Generation this and Stolen Generation that, the net result was that those "stolen" were able to integrate into the dominant culture. That's called a survival trait.
I think the White Australia Policy was disgusting, the second worst thing we've done (behind the Stolen Generation and only just ahead of the Cronulla Riots and Pauline Hanson/One Nation) and of course we're better off for it. Just because it's politically correct but because it's the right thing to do and it's completely hypocritical to take this land from the Aboriginals and then turn around and say that no-one else can come here.
When you talk about coming here and "integrating" what do you mean? When I think of Australian values I simply think of working your hardest and helping out your fellow man and that's why I consider international university students more Australian then dole-bludging bogans. Sure they were born here and then drink VB, listen to AC/DC and eat vegemite but seriously? What have they actually done? You're only Australian if you work 100% each day and help out others in need. Although I do agree they should learn English, but that's more about communication then integration.

TL;DR Doesn't matter where you're from/how long you've been here, if you work hard and help out others, you're Australian.
 

Sean951

New member
Mar 30, 2011
650
0
0
EverythingIncredible said:
Also, just about everything that was taught about the Civil War. Can you say "It was about slavery"?

Seriously, the issues were a hell of a lot more complicated than that. The Confederates weren't all slave beating assholes who only wanted to continue being dicks. They just believed in a different form of government. I will be one of the last people to support their viewpoint on a government, but the way they are portrayed in history books is just wrong.

Hell, I recently witnessed someone on this forum who thought that the confederate flag was all about Slavery/Racism.
No... they actually listed slavery as the main reason for secession. Or rather, the possibility that maybe someday Lincoln might possibly try and make slavery illegal. It has morphed to "states rights" because the South doesn't want to admit it, and they needed a reason to keep Confederate flags without being called racists.
 

Buzz Killington_v1legacy

Likes Good Stories About Bridges
Aug 8, 2009
771
0
0
GWarface said:
Well, for a start you can try and find some info on Richard Krege.. He was the guy that did the ground and soil tests at Treblinka in 1999..
This would be the Richard Krege who's an electrical engineer and not a geophysicist or archaeologist, and whose supposed findings (as far as I can tell) have only been published in one place? That place being the non-peer-reviewed Journal of Historical Review, published by the Institute for Historical Review, an organization with ties to extreme right-wing and neo-Nazi groups? The Richard Krege who attended [http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/second-aussie-joins-holocaust-denial-conference/story-e6frg6nf-1111112684666] the Holocaust Denial Conference in Iran in 2006? The Richard Krege whose conclusions directly contradict the findings of the official investigation of Treblinka by Judge Zdzislaw Lukaszkiewicz in 1945?

In the northwestern section of the area, the surface is covered for about 2 hectares by a mixture of ashes and sand. In this mixture, one finds countless human bones, often still covered with tissue remains, which are in a condition of decomposition. During the inspection, which I made with the assistance of an expert in forensic medicine, it was determined that the ashes are without any doubt of human origin (remains of cremated human bones). The examination of human skulls could discover no trace of wounding. At a distance of some 100 m, there is now an unpleasant odor of burning and decay.

That Richard Krege? Yeah. If there's anything academia's taught me, it's that you really have to consider your sources.
 

Sean951

New member
Mar 30, 2011
650
0
0
We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.
From the Texas declaration.

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.
From Vice President Alexander Stephens explaining why the South was different from the North.

There were indeed other causes, but they were secondary. Texas mentioned slavery 21 times in it's declaration, and they weren't alone.
 

Petromir

New member
Apr 10, 2010
593
0
0
That Cromwell was some sort of Hero for Justice and Democracy, and an all round great guy!

Before we even get to the opinion of him amongst the Irish there's a few little matters:

After a war that was in part triggered by the dodgy arrests of MPs, he then went and illegally arrested far more MPs.

He hand picked those involved in the trial of the king and even they wouldnt condem him.

Even to the English he was one of the most oppresive leaders this country has ever seen, and probably Europe, and wouldnt have done that bad on a world list, at least of relitively famous ones.

Moving on from the most dissctatorila leader the country has ever had I can think of a few others:

That in the case of The British empire and its many wars, we were the only ones ever to behave badly. Some of the terrible things we did are pareded to prove how evil the British are, but in most cases at least a faction of the locals were just as bad.

That the Dam busters raid was the most effective raid of 617 squadron (and that said raid was either it was an huge success or a massive failiure). They had many succesful raids, many fantasically sucesful militarially. They were Destroying sub pens almost for fun at one point (and the germans just kept making the Reinforced contrete thicker, presumibly as they like wasting money, as I don't think they ever managed to make it thick enough, and wasted fantastic amounts of resources doing so) were so accurate they refused to use the marks set by the radio guided pathfinders from other units as being so inaccurate that when they bombed the marks they'd miss the real target as the marks were to far from it.

That WW1 infantry tactics were rubbish on both sides and purely meatgrinder in nature. Most western Militaries still use tactics used in that conflict, indeed a german officer of the time wrote what became the standard textbook between the wars, and indeed is still on the Sandhurst (British Army officer training school) recommended reading list, and most of it is as good as model to follow as an infantry officer/NCO as you'll find anywhere as regard to tactics. You might have heard of him, bloke called Rommel.

Theres more.

Oddly the lies you get in science (ignoring the ones from the more looney end of religions, which even in religious schools i attended were largely dismissed) are often just as bad.
 

Buzz Killington_v1legacy

Likes Good Stories About Bridges
Aug 8, 2009
771
0
0
Petromir said:
I don't really have a point here; I just wanted to say that one of the neatest things I've ever seen is the actual death warrant for Charles I [http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/takingliberties/staritems/51charlesdeathwarrantpic.html] at the British Library, signed by (among others) Oliver Cromwell. (I think that's his signature next to the third wax seal down all the way over on the left.)
 

emeraldrafael

New member
Jul 17, 2010
8,589
0
0
WolfThomas said:
You could just say it falls on the leaders of the western worlds shoulders in the end. all of the, at least the major ones. Its just... frustrating, especially if Im somehewre internationally when people say that the US caused vietnam like it was only the US from day one. usually cause its followed by some moral high ground statement about their own country. Plus that in particular just stuck out cuase the guy called himelf a teacher like that was supposed to mean something to me.

Shoqiyqa said:
...
According to the Vietnamese, they got left with Japanese occupiers after WWII and kicked them out themselves, and then the French came back like they owned the place so the Viet kicked them out too, carried on kicking them out despite the US joining in on the French side, kicked the US out, kicked the US-backed SVG out and then hopped the border to work off what was left of their frustrations by kicking the Khmer Rouge out (and replacing them with a relatively benign, sensible, genteel and honest communist government). Most of that gets glossed right over, doesn't it?

...
Not at my school. Some if it Im unfamiliar with, but we were taught a pretty general idea of all the sides beyond "US good, all others bad". Though I have to laugh at the idea of an honest communist government.
 

cheese_wizington

New member
Aug 16, 2009
2,328
0
0
My current History teacher is basically unraveling the lies of post Civil War US History one year at a time, and I love him for it. I have never seen someone have that much energy every single day for every single week of every single month of every year. Awesome.

Anyways, the absolute crap that Caesar was a bad guy. His ideas single handedly fucking fixed up Rome, and he got stabbed for it.
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
treeboy027 said:
High School:
1. Pluto isn't a planet.
Wait, are you listing that as a lie?

Pluto really fails to fit any definition of a planet. And if it did, we wouldn't have 9 planets in our solar system we would have over 20 and worse than that they would be in no clear order as their relative distance from the sun varies so much, and these rocks really are tiny, fare smaller than any.

Face it, we have 8 planets in or solar system.

The search for the 9th planet was based on an assumption there "had to be one" because it was supposedly the only way to explain Neptune's odd orbit. Now we have found out Pulto is far far smaller than expected, it would have no effect on Neptune, it's orbit was effected by other forces, now we can categorically rule out any large planet much beyond Neptune as nothing of significant gravitational pull is affecting its orbit.

Pluto really REALLY is not a planet.

Planets are not defined by "well I've always called it a planet", there is SCIENCE to this!
 

Housebroken Lunatic

New member
Sep 12, 2009
2,544
0
0
mabrookes said:
What are you talking about? In Britain the only paper that supported Nazi Germany was ridiculed by politicians, the public and in most academic circles. Of course there were people who supported these types of views in all countries; you're not making any kind of point by stating that. You are however talking nonsense by suggesting it was an accepted or widespread idea.

As for the science of "eugenics", it was barely considered in respected academic circles by this point and pretty much never supported in Britain (briefly by an extremely small number of politicians at the turn of the century who were completely defeated) and was never accepted in Britain ? unlike the US where a Eugenics program was still running in many states until the late 70s.
"Nonsense"!? HAH!

So despite the fact that these ideas existed in several countries at the time (even by your own admission), it's "nonsense" to say that they were widespread?

And the fact that they actually WERE accepted in several countries (the U.S, Germany, Scandinavia etc.). It's "nonsense" to "suggest" that the ideas were "accepted" just because BRITAIN happened to be some sort of exception?

Also, in your obsession in arguing over britain, you totally missed the point of my entire post, which was about trying to see things from the perspective of the common german citizen back then. And how it's pretty fucking NONSENSICAL of you to simply dismiss every member of the nazi party as "evil bastards", when you completely disregard the historical and cultural context of the time.
 

Housebroken Lunatic

New member
Sep 12, 2009
2,544
0
0
thevillageidiot13 said:
Well, while I agree that America was very happy as an isolationist nation, I don't agree that they should've stayed out of World War II. Certainly, international relations in the post-war World were very poorly-handled afterwards (read: the Cold War, Operation PBSUCCESS, the Vietnam War, etc.). But, for all the missteps and idiot moves our politicians made during WWII and the years afterwards, I'm very happy we contributed to the defeat of Nazi Germany.

I *do*, however, believe that the outcome of WWII would've been the same with or without American help. The Soviet Union had already done a spectacular job of fighting off hordes of Nazis (with the help of their notorious climate, of course). Afterwards, the Nazis were incredibly weak and vulnerable and their morale was rock bottom. The US just kinda swooped in and took all the credit at the last minute.

Also, my problem isn't so much that FDR *wanted* to join the war. It's that he failed to clarify the context in which Pearl Harbor occurred, instead choosing to simply let the American public believe that it was a totally unprovoked attack. I also didn't like the fact that he basically put 120,000 Japanese-Americans in what more-or-less amounts to a prison for 4 to 5 years.

For what it's worth, though, I like that the US was able to play a part (however small, and however blown-out-of-proportion) in the defeat of the Axis Powers. At the same time, I definitely agree with you: the US *really* dropped the ball with their whole "Truman Doctrine/Containment Policy" after WWII. We could've handled our problems with the Soviet Union in a more mature way, without dragging the rest of the planet into it.
Sorry but to me that all sounds like you're well aware of the huge problems caused by the U.S and it's eventual "interventionist" policies after the second world war, but that you pretty much ignore all those problems for the sake of being able to enjoy a little "glory" over taking part in defeating germany.

It's just as bad as those Gulf War supporters who basically just supported war because the war made them feel "good about themselves".

And in the allmighty words of the late comedian Bill Hick's: "If you want something that makes you feel good about yourself, may I suggest:... Sit-ups? Including more bran in your diet? Im not telling you how to live your life, i'm just putting out some suggestions there. Small little improvements to your life so that we can avoid a fucking conflagaration, okay?"