Don't you wonder how much we have been brainwashed about history by liberal education?

[Peach]

Generally, history books written before 1970 are safest.

"A People's History of the United States", 1980 by Howard Zinn is unmitigated nonsense that has apparently become the basis for what history is still taught in the public system.

Actually what's in that book is completely glossed over in "standard" education which is all about trying to whitewash history into making the reader always the "good guys", whether it's in relation to Native American treatment, the Crusades, racial relations and slavery, or whatever. Columbus for example is held up in the 'standard' version as the great explorer who opened the doors to "civilization", yet they never mention that he grabbed Native Americans who came to greet him, and sent them out to find gold (in a place that had no gold) and then when they returned without it, cut off their hands. And then took some back to Europe to gawk at as "specimens" while opening the doors to genocide.

That's the sort of thing the 'standard' history leaves out as inconducive to the mythology it's there to create of "American exceptionalism". That ain't in any way a "Liberal" idea. Actually "Liberal" has nothing to do with any kind of education. It's not an education system.

Another good one is "Lies My Teacher Told Me" by sociologist James Loewen. That fills in more gaps left by "standard" history such as what an overbearing asshole Woodrow Wilson was, keeping insurgent troops fighting in the USSR right up to 1920 and interfering all over Latin America, and the manner in which Natives and early Europeans actually interacted, the former having been essential to the latter's very survival.

Face it, the 'standard' history is there to spin every event into a fairy tale. These books are the sunshine that exposes its flaws. Why anyone would want to close himself off from deeper info than he was allowed as a child is unfathomable. I mean, that's just frickin' stupid.

And all the ones you list are Hate America, first, last and always while hiding how great the country is...

Then read The Great Republic series.

 

[Pogo]

Generally, history books written before 1970 are safest.

"A People's History of the United States", 1980 by Howard Zinn is unmitigated nonsense that has apparently become the basis for what history is still taught in the public system.

Actually what's in that book is completely glossed over in "standard" education which is all about trying to whitewash history into making the reader always the "good guys", whether it's in relation to Native American treatment, the Crusades, racial relations and slavery, or whatever. Columbus for example is held up in the 'standard' version as the great explorer who opened the doors to "civilization", yet they never mention that he grabbed Native Americans who came to greet him, and sent them out to find gold (in a place that had no gold) and then when they returned without it, cut off their hands. And then took some back to Europe to gawk at as "specimens" while opening the doors to genocide.

That's the sort of thing the 'standard' history leaves out as inconducive to the mythology it's there to create of "American exceptionalism". That ain't in any way a "Liberal" idea. Actually "Liberal" has nothing to do with any kind of education. It's not an education system.

Another good one is "Lies My Teacher Told Me" by sociologist James Loewen. That fills in more gaps left by "standard" history such as what an overbearing asshole Woodrow Wilson was, keeping insurgent troops fighting in the USSR right up to 1920 and interfering all over Latin America, and the manner in which Natives and early Europeans actually interacted, the former having been essential to the latter's very survival.

Face it, the 'standard' history is there to spin every event into a fairy tale. These books are the sunshine that exposes its flaws. Why anyone would want to close himself off from deeper info than he was allowed as a child is unfathomable. I mean, that's just frickin' stupid.

And all the ones you list are Hate America, first, last and always while hiding how great the country is...

Actually I only listed one. I have it right here --- what page might I find "hate America" on?

You must know, right? Which edition do you have?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Generally, history books written before 1970 are safest.

A telling remark, since that's the same time the idea of "question authority" took life

It's also roughly the time that era's Communists got de facto control of the public education system, achieving a goal they had set some years previously.

I dunno what kind of schooling you purport to remember but mine painted "communism" as a monster.

Graduated high school in 1970. Solid Catholic education, which had impeccable standards, and was at that time virulently anti-Communist. Later came the Jesuits, but that's another story.

Keep in mind that by the time period being discussed (1970 and forward), contemporary Communists had long and well entrenched themselves among liberal circles, and were no longer calling themselves Communist. Name changes work wonders when media is complicit. Over time they have simply crowded out all things American in the Democratic Party save those useful in propaganda, and thereby produced the lunatic aberration we have today.

 

[Theowl32]

The left, so desperate to make sure hitler was not a socialist, when that is exactly what he was.

So desperate.

 

[Reasonable]

I wonder if they know how many native tribes owned BLACK slaves and actually fought with the democrats (confederacy.)

And there's another one, though this is more the contemporary alt-history revisionism rather than the old "standard" education paradigm......

The Confederacy was not "Democrats". Democrats were established everywhere. And on the brink of Civil War in 1860 the South shut out the Democrats, awarding it a total of zero electoral votes, having already driven that party's convention out of the South entirely. And the South, for its part, had been murmuring about secession since before the Democratic Party first existed, at least as far back as the Quincy Adams administration. The Democratic candidate Stephen Douglas came in fourth in 1860, and then upon defeat worked on Lincoln's behalf to speak against the idea of secession and advising Lincoln on how to deal with it.

But no, the fact that the Republican Party did not yet exist in the South doesn't somehow make the Confederacy "Democrats".

That election of 1860 and the complex ongoing factors that led up to it, are not at all covered in the 'standard' history schoolbooks. Too messy, too complex, and too violent. You can't raise an army of obedient drones if you tell them the actual truth.

The Confederacy was controlled by democrats....all the way through........

The confederacy was controlled by CONSERVATIVES. You feel the need to characterize them as DEMOCRATS because you're so embarrassed of the history of conservatism.,

 

[Pogo]

I wonder if they know how many native tribes owned BLACK slaves and actually fought with the democrats (confederacy.)

And there's another one, though this is more the contemporary alt-history revisionism rather than the old "standard" education paradigm......

The Confederacy was not "Democrats". Democrats were established everywhere. And on the brink of Civil War in 1860 the South shut out the Democrats, awarding it a total of zero electoral votes, having already driven that party's convention out of the South entirely. And the South, for its part, had been murmuring about secession since before the Democratic Party first existed, at least as far back as the Quincy Adams administration. The Democratic candidate Stephen Douglas came in fourth in 1860, and then upon defeat worked on Lincoln's behalf to speak against the idea of secession and advising Lincoln on how to deal with it.

But no, the fact that the Republican Party did not yet exist in the South doesn't somehow make the Confederacy "Democrats".

That election of 1860 and the complex ongoing factors that led up to it, are not at all covered in the 'standard' history schoolbooks. Too messy, too complex, and too violent. You can't raise an army of obedient drones if you tell them the actual truth.

The political party members who were actually fighting the war were democrats.....the democrats in the north simply tried to undermine the war effort while the democrats in the South were shooting republicans in order to keep their slaves.

The Republican party was the party of the Abolition of slavery, no democrat in the south would be a republican and none of them were delegates for Lincoln....

Again Stupid --- the Republican Party DID NOT EXIST in the South then. Lincoln's name never appeared on a ballot there, ever. Neither did Frémont's in 1856. The RP was brand new and put all its resources into the North, Midwest and West, which is where it figured (correctly) that's where its support would be. It was strictly a regional party until after that War.

That of course is why Lincoln got no EVs from the South --- he wasn't a choice on the ballot. Douglas however WAS on the ballot, all over the South, and he too got shut out. Pulled a zero. The South had already bolted from the DP and kicked its convention out. It did that because the DP wasn't giving the South what it wanted.

I see you're still self-imprisoned in this ridiculous dichotomy-world where every human is a member of one or the other of only two possible political parties and that everybody MUST belong to one, solely because you don't have the basic intelligence to see any other possibilities, or the historical curiosity to find out about them, which ignorance is nothing new. You have no political party registration numbers for Confederate (or Union) soldiers at all, a large number of whom were too young to vote anyway. MORE morevover, once the various states seceded and until they were reinstated back into the Union years later, the Confederacy was not part of the United States. So it had no system of political parties anyway.

Another fun fact -- the states of Tennessee, Kentucky and Virginia (which included what is now West Virginia) voted for John Bell of the Constitutional Union Party, an offshoot of the Whigs, who was against the expansion of slavery and against secession. Matter of fact this area of western North Carolina, when put to a referendum, voted against secession too and stayed loyal to the Union. So you're pulling all of this out of your ass in lieu of the history book you don't own.

 

[Reasonable]

The left, so desperate to make sure hitler was not a socialist, when that is exactly what he was.

So desperate.

You're dumber than dirt and when you talk about " education" it's like a weasel talking about architecture.

 

[Pogo]

I wonder if they know how many native tribes owned BLACK slaves and actually fought with the democrats (confederacy.)

And there's another one, though this is more the contemporary alt-history revisionism rather than the old "standard" education paradigm......

The Confederacy was not "Democrats". Democrats were established everywhere. And on the brink of Civil War in 1860 the South shut out the Democrats, awarding it a total of zero electoral votes, having already driven that party's convention out of the South entirely. And the South, for its part, had been murmuring about secession since before the Democratic Party first existed, at least as far back as the Quincy Adams administration. The Democratic candidate Stephen Douglas came in fourth in 1860, and then upon defeat worked on Lincoln's behalf to speak against the idea of secession and advising Lincoln on how to deal with it.

But no, the fact that the Republican Party did not yet exist in the South doesn't somehow make the Confederacy "Democrats".

That election of 1860 and the complex ongoing factors that led up to it, are not at all covered in the 'standard' history schoolbooks. Too messy, too complex, and too violent. You can't raise an army of obedient drones if you tell them the actual truth.

The Confederacy was controlled by democrats....all the way through........

The confederacy was controlled by CONSERVATIVES. You feel the need to characterize them as DEMOCRATS because you're so embarrassed of the history of conservatism.,

He seems to be self-imprisoned in a trifecta of fallacies -- one, the False Dichotomy that everybody everywhere automatically belongs to either "Democrat" or "Republican" as if no other options exist, two, that political parties hold some fixed ideology that never ever shifts over time with the political winds, and three, the all-consuming Composition Fallacy that dictates "if Hitler was right wing and I am right wing that means I am Hitler so therefore I need to revise Hitler into 'left wing' just as I need to revise the Civil War into a political party battle".

It's kind of pathetic to wallow in that level of intellectual sloth.

 

[Camp]

This is a comical thread. The OP rants about revisionist history and calls Zinn a fake historian by posting history lectures by political pundits. Zinn was a college Professor who was widely accepted as a scholar. He began his historical writings after his service as a bombardier in WWII. He wanted to know the truth first hand, so he visited and researched the targets he himself had dropped bombs on. This is how he discovered the lies he and his fellow air crews had been told and how he decided to make a life's mission of telling the truth about historical events. So never mind about the scholar Professor war hero with real experience in living one of histories greatest endeavors, listen to the political pundits with partisan agendas.

 

[Pogo]

Generally, history books written before 1970 are safest.

"A People's History of the United States", 1980 by Howard Zinn is unmitigated nonsense that has apparently become the basis for what history is still taught in the public system.

Actually what's in that book is completely glossed over in "standard" education which is all about trying to whitewash history into making the reader always the "good guys", whether it's in relation to Native American treatment, the Crusades, racial relations and slavery, or whatever. Columbus for example is held up in the 'standard' version as the great explorer who opened the doors to "civilization", yet they never mention that he grabbed Native Americans who came to greet him, and sent them out to find gold (in a place that had no gold) and then when they returned without it, cut off their hands. And then took some back to Europe to gawk at as "specimens" while opening the doors to genocide.

That's the sort of thing the 'standard' history leaves out as inconducive to the mythology it's there to create of "American exceptionalism". That ain't in any way a "Liberal" idea. Actually "Liberal" has nothing to do with any kind of education. It's not an education system.

Another good one is "Lies My Teacher Told Me" by sociologist James Loewen. That fills in more gaps left by "standard" history such as what an overbearing asshole Woodrow Wilson was, keeping insurgent troops fighting in the USSR right up to 1920 and interfering all over Latin America, and the manner in which Natives and early Europeans actually interacted, the former having been essential to the latter's very survival.

Face it, the 'standard' history is there to spin every event into a fairy tale. These books are the sunshine that exposes its flaws. Why anyone would want to close himself off from deeper info than he was allowed as a child is unfathomable. I mean, that's just frickin' stupid.

And all the ones you list are Hate America, first, last and always while hiding how great the country is...

Actually I only listed one. I have it right here --- what page might I find "hate America" on?

You must know, right? Which edition do you have?

Still waiting.

Also still waiting for that shit from a week and a half ago that you never came up with because you pulled that one out of your ass too. I haven't seen that $100 USMB contribution in my name show up as a result of not finding any.

You're a flaming dishonest hack. Own that.

 

[Theowl32]

Who denies that there was slavery in Africa before the Europeans invaded?

Yep, there's another one. This entire series of revisions seems to be based on strawman premises. Perhaps the OP was not paying attention when even our whitewash 'standard' education mentioned Greek and Roman slaves?

Slavery as an institution existed everywhere on every continent, part of the spoils of war. We all know that. What was new and unique about the transatlantic version, transporting Africans to the Americas, was the practice of totally uprooting a people from their familiar land, familiar culture, familiar language and familiar religions, into an entirely different land that for them may as well have been another planet with no such points of reference at all, which along with skin color became an essential psychological tool. None of that would have been the case with intra-European, intra-African, intra-Asian etc slave practices. Slaves and slavers would have been neighbors, not exotic foreigners.

But I have yet to ever see anybody trying to put forth a revisionism that claims Europeans just woke up one day in 1500 and invented "slavery".

Apparently they like to leave out the entire context of uprooting.

You are denying that when we talk about slavery that we have certain images that feed a certain paradigm?

Let me know when black history month ever goes away from the blacks are nothing but victims of whitey narrative. In any of programs run on the History Channel or when ESPN brings up nothing but racial injustices.

You are denying this? There is an ex professor that I talk to. He is black guy and we get into it a lot. He is so fucked up that he thinks Africans made it to the Americas before everyone and cites the Olmec stoneheads has proof. Since according to him they have "negroid" features.

Anyway, there is a plain and obvious and concerted effort to push victimology in our schools, media and entertainment industy.

You are not denying this, are you?

 

[2aguy]

I wonder if they know how many native tribes owned BLACK slaves and actually fought with the democrats (confederacy.)

And there's another one, though this is more the contemporary alt-history revisionism rather than the old "standard" education paradigm......

The Confederacy was not "Democrats". Democrats were established everywhere. And on the brink of Civil War in 1860 the South shut out the Democrats, awarding it a total of zero electoral votes, having already driven that party's convention out of the South entirely. And the South, for its part, had been murmuring about secession since before the Democratic Party first existed, at least as far back as the Quincy Adams administration. The Democratic candidate Stephen Douglas came in fourth in 1860, and then upon defeat worked on Lincoln's behalf to speak against the idea of secession and advising Lincoln on how to deal with it.

But no, the fact that the Republican Party did not yet exist in the South doesn't somehow make the Confederacy "Democrats".

That election of 1860 and the complex ongoing factors that led up to it, are not at all covered in the 'standard' history schoolbooks. Too messy, too complex, and too violent. You can't raise an army of obedient drones if you tell them the actual truth.

The Confederacy was controlled by democrats....all the way through........

The confederacy was controlled by CONSERVATIVES. You feel the need to characterize them as DEMOCRATS because you're so embarrassed of the history of conservatism.,

Sorry....I know you are trying to smear modern American conservatives by comparing them to the democrats who owned slaves...sell it to the democrats, they are stupid enough to buy it.....

Democrat conservatives in the south were trying to save slavery.......Modern American conservatives are trying to save the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.....all men are created equal......

Modern conservatives and democrat, slave owning conservatives have nothing in common...but, the democrat party is still trying to own people....they have simply moved from wanting to own blacks, to wanting to control everyone...

 

[2aguy]

Generally, history books written before 1970 are safest.

"A People's History of the United States", 1980 by Howard Zinn is unmitigated nonsense that has apparently become the basis for what history is still taught in the public system.

Actually what's in that book is completely glossed over in "standard" education which is all about trying to whitewash history into making the reader always the "good guys", whether it's in relation to Native American treatment, the Crusades, racial relations and slavery, or whatever. Columbus for example is held up in the 'standard' version as the great explorer who opened the doors to "civilization", yet they never mention that he grabbed Native Americans who came to greet him, and sent them out to find gold (in a place that had no gold) and then when they returned without it, cut off their hands. And then took some back to Europe to gawk at as "specimens" while opening the doors to genocide.

That's the sort of thing the 'standard' history leaves out as inconducive to the mythology it's there to create of "American exceptionalism". That ain't in any way a "Liberal" idea. Actually "Liberal" has nothing to do with any kind of education. It's not an education system.

Another good one is "Lies My Teacher Told Me" by sociologist James Loewen. That fills in more gaps left by "standard" history such as what an overbearing asshole Woodrow Wilson was, keeping insurgent troops fighting in the USSR right up to 1920 and interfering all over Latin America, and the manner in which Natives and early Europeans actually interacted, the former having been essential to the latter's very survival.

Face it, the 'standard' history is there to spin every event into a fairy tale. These books are the sunshine that exposes its flaws. Why anyone would want to close himself off from deeper info than he was allowed as a child is unfathomable. I mean, that's just frickin' stupid.

And all the ones you list are Hate America, first, last and always while hiding how great the country is...

Actually I only listed one. I have it right here --- what page might I find "hate America" on?

You must know, right? Which edition do you have?

Still waiting.

Also still waiting for that shit from a week and a half ago that you never came up with because you pulled that one out of your ass too. I haven't seen that $100 USMB contribution in my name show up as a result of not finding any.

You're a flaming dishonest hack. Own that.

Hey...I remember that.....you were given 24 hours to decide if you were an asswipe, an asshole or both......I had to settle on you being both because you refused to pick....

 

[2aguy]

This is a comical thread. The OP rants about revisionist history and calls Zinn a fake historian by posting history lectures by political pundits. Zinn was a college Professor who was widely accepted as a scholar. He began his historical writings after his service as a bombardier in WWII. He wanted to know the truth first hand, so he visited and researched the targets he himself had dropped bombs on. This is how he discovered the lies he and his fellow air crews had been told and how he decided to make a life's mission of telling the truth about historical events. So never mind about the scholar Professor war hero with real experience in living one of histories greatest endeavors, listen to the political pundits with partisan agendas.

Zinn is an idiot...

 

[2aguy]

I wonder if they know how many native tribes owned BLACK slaves and actually fought with the democrats (confederacy.)

And there's another one, though this is more the contemporary alt-history revisionism rather than the old "standard" education paradigm......

The Confederacy was not "Democrats". Democrats were established everywhere. And on the brink of Civil War in 1860 the South shut out the Democrats, awarding it a total of zero electoral votes, having already driven that party's convention out of the South entirely. And the South, for its part, had been murmuring about secession since before the Democratic Party first existed, at least as far back as the Quincy Adams administration. The Democratic candidate Stephen Douglas came in fourth in 1860, and then upon defeat worked on Lincoln's behalf to speak against the idea of secession and advising Lincoln on how to deal with it.

But no, the fact that the Republican Party did not yet exist in the South doesn't somehow make the Confederacy "Democrats".

That election of 1860 and the complex ongoing factors that led up to it, are not at all covered in the 'standard' history schoolbooks. Too messy, too complex, and too violent. You can't raise an army of obedient drones if you tell them the actual truth.

The political party members who were actually fighting the war were democrats.....the democrats in the north simply tried to undermine the war effort while the democrats in the South were shooting republicans in order to keep their slaves.

The Republican party was the party of the Abolition of slavery, no democrat in the south would be a republican and none of them were delegates for Lincoln....

Again Stupid --- the Republican Party DID NOT EXIST in the South then. Lincoln's name never appeared on a ballot there, ever. Neither did Frémont's in 1856. The RP was brand new and put all its resources into the North, Midwest and West, which is where it figured (correctly) that's where its support would be. It was strictly a regional party until after that War.

That of course is why Lincoln got no EVs from the South --- he wasn't a choice on the ballot. Douglas however WAS on the ballot, all over the South, and he too got shut out. Pulled a zero. The South had already bolted from the DP and kicked its convention out. It did that because the DP wasn't giving the South what it wanted.

I see you're still self-imprisoned in this ridiculous dichotomy-world where every human is a member of one or the other of only two possible political parties and that everybody MUST belong to one, solely because you don't have the basic intelligence to see any other possibilities, or the historical curiosity to find out about them, which ignorance is nothing new. You have no political party registration numbers for Confederate (or Union) soldiers at all, a large number of whom were too young to vote anyway. MORE morevover, once the various states seceded and until they were reinstated back into the Union years later, the Confederacy was not part of the United States. So it had no system of political parties anyway.

Another fun fact -- the states of Tennessee, Kentucky and Virginia (which included what is now West Virginia) voted for John Bell of the Constitutional Union Party, an offshoot of the Whigs, who was against the expansion of slavery and against secession. Matter of fact this area of western North Carolina, when put to a referendum, voted against secession too and stayed loyal to the Union. So you're pulling all of this out of your ass in lieu of the history book you don't own.

Republicans did not exist in the South because no one in the south would stand as a delegate...they hated Republicans because they were the party of abolition...the ending of slavery...

 

[g5000]

How much has been rewritten in history that we accept as fact, but are actual deliberate lies?

Yeah. Historical lies like, "Nazis are left wing."

It's amazing how many tards bleev that bullshit.

Or how about those old timey Christian terrorists in the KKK who tards think were all Democrats? That one's priceless.

 

[g5000]

I wonder if they know how many native tribes owned BLACK slaves and actually fought with the democrats (confederacy.)

And there's another one, though this is more the contemporary alt-history revisionism rather than the old "standard" education paradigm......

The Confederacy was not "Democrats". Democrats were established everywhere. And on the brink of Civil War in 1860 the South shut out the Democrats, awarding it a total of zero electoral votes, having already driven that party's convention out of the South entirely. And the South, for its part, had been murmuring about secession since before the Democratic Party first existed, at least as far back as the Quincy Adams administration. The Democratic candidate Stephen Douglas came in fourth in 1860, and then upon defeat worked on Lincoln's behalf to speak against the idea of secession and advising Lincoln on how to deal with it.

But no, the fact that the Republican Party did not yet exist in the South doesn't somehow make the Confederacy "Democrats".

That election of 1860 and the complex ongoing factors that led up to it, are not at all covered in the 'standard' history schoolbooks. Too messy, too complex, and too violent. You can't raise an army of obedient drones if you tell them the actual truth.

The political party members who were actually fighting the war were democrats.....the democrats in the north simply tried to undermine the war effort while the democrats in the South were shooting republicans in order to keep their slaves.

The Republican party was the party of the Abolition of slavery, no democrat in the south would be a republican and none of them were delegates for Lincoln....

Again Stupid --- the Republican Party DID NOT EXIST in the South then. Lincoln's name never appeared on a ballot there, ever. Neither did Frémont's in 1856. The RP was brand new and put all its resources into the North, Midwest and West, which is where it figured (correctly) that's where its support would be. It was strictly a regional party until after that War.

That of course is why Lincoln got no EVs from the South --- he wasn't a choice on the ballot. Douglas however WAS on the ballot, all over the South, and he too got shut out. Pulled a zero. The South had already bolted from the DP and kicked its convention out. It did that because the DP wasn't giving the South what it wanted.

I see you're still self-imprisoned in this ridiculous dichotomy-world where every human is a member of one or the other of only two possible political parties and that everybody MUST belong to one, solely because you don't have the basic intelligence to see any other possibilities, or the historical curiosity to find out about them, which ignorance is nothing new. You have no political party registration numbers for Confederate (or Union) soldiers at all, a large number of whom were too young to vote anyway. MORE morevover, once the various states seceded and until they were reinstated back into the Union years later, the Confederacy was not part of the United States. So it had no system of political parties anyway.

Another fun fact -- the states of Tennessee, Kentucky and Virginia (which included what is now West Virginia) voted for John Bell of the Constitutional Union Party, an offshoot of the Whigs, who was against the expansion of slavery and against secession. Matter of fact this area of western North Carolina, when put to a referendum, voted against secession too and stayed loyal to the Union. So you're pulling all of this out of your ass in lieu of the history book you don't own.

Republicans did not exist in the South because no one in the south would stand as a delegate...they hated Republicans because they were the party of abolition...the ending of slavery...

Yep. Republicans were flaming liberals back then.

 

[Pogo]

Who denies that there was slavery in Africa before the Europeans invaded?

Yep, there's another one. This entire series of revisions seems to be based on strawman premises. Perhaps the OP was not paying attention when even our whitewash 'standard' education mentioned Greek and Roman slaves?

Slavery as an institution existed everywhere on every continent, part of the spoils of war. We all know that. What was new and unique about the transatlantic version, transporting Africans to the Americas, was the practice of totally uprooting a people from their familiar land, familiar culture, familiar language and familiar religions, into an entirely different land that for them may as well have been another planet with no such points of reference at all, which along with skin color became an essential psychological tool. None of that would have been the case with intra-European, intra-African, intra-Asian etc slave practices. Slaves and slavers would have been neighbors, not exotic foreigners.

But I have yet to ever see anybody trying to put forth a revisionism that claims Europeans just woke up one day in 1500 and invented "slavery".

Apparently they like to leave out the entire context of uprooting.

You are denying that when we talk about slavery that we have certain images that feed a certain paradigm?

I don't even know what that's supposed to mean but again, nobody ever claimed that what European slave traders did in terms of the institution of slavery was new. The intercontinental transport was new, but that wasn't your claim anyway.

Let me know when black history month ever goes away from the blacks are nothing but victims of whitey narrative. In any of programs run on the History Channel or when ESPN brings up nothing but racial injustices.

Pffft. Television? Please. I don't do television. It's dishonest. I do actual history. Television is a propaganda device; it is not life, and live sure as hell ain't television. Get past that.

You are denying this? There is an ex professor that I talk to. He is black guy and we get into it a lot. He is so fucked up that he thinks Africans made it to the Americas before everyone and cites the Olmec stoneheads has proof. Since according to him they have "negroid" features.

"Denying" --- what?
I don't know that Olmec structures are "proof" of anything other than that a civilization existed there three thousand years ago.

Anyway, there is a plain and obvious and concerted effort to push victimology in our schools, media and entertainment industy.

You are not denying this, are you?

I don't accept it as a premise, since it's subjective emotional butthurt. Not interested in emotional butthurt or spin, which is again why I don't do TV. I'm interested in historical fact. And in seeing that that which is known is not perverted just because some latter-day wag can't handle his own fallacies.

 

[2aguy]

How much has been rewritten in history that we accept as fact, but are actual deliberate lies?

Yeah. Historical lies like, "Nazis are left wing."

It's amazing how many tards bleev that bullshit.

Or how about those old timey Christian terrorists in the KKK who tards think were all Democrats? That one's priceless.

National socialists were left wing....

Christians can't be terrorists......there is nothing in the the teachings of Jesus that allow it...

No...the kkk were created by the democrats.....and used by the democrats to murder blacks and republicans....

 

[Pogo]

I wonder if they know how many native tribes owned BLACK slaves and actually fought with the democrats (confederacy.)

And there's another one, though this is more the contemporary alt-history revisionism rather than the old "standard" education paradigm......

The Confederacy was not "Democrats". Democrats were established everywhere. And on the brink of Civil War in 1860 the South shut out the Democrats, awarding it a total of zero electoral votes, having already driven that party's convention out of the South entirely. And the South, for its part, had been murmuring about secession since before the Democratic Party first existed, at least as far back as the Quincy Adams administration. The Democratic candidate Stephen Douglas came in fourth in 1860, and then upon defeat worked on Lincoln's behalf to speak against the idea of secession and advising Lincoln on how to deal with it.

But no, the fact that the Republican Party did not yet exist in the South doesn't somehow make the Confederacy "Democrats".

That election of 1860 and the complex ongoing factors that led up to it, are not at all covered in the 'standard' history schoolbooks. Too messy, too complex, and too violent. You can't raise an army of obedient drones if you tell them the actual truth.

The political party members who were actually fighting the war were democrats.....the democrats in the north simply tried to undermine the war effort while the democrats in the South were shooting republicans in order to keep their slaves.

The Republican party was the party of the Abolition of slavery, no democrat in the south would be a republican and none of them were delegates for Lincoln....

Again Stupid --- the Republican Party DID NOT EXIST in the South then. Lincoln's name never appeared on a ballot there, ever. Neither did Frémont's in 1856. The RP was brand new and put all its resources into the North, Midwest and West, which is where it figured (correctly) that's where its support would be. It was strictly a regional party until after that War.

That of course is why Lincoln got no EVs from the South --- he wasn't a choice on the ballot. Douglas however WAS on the ballot, all over the South, and he too got shut out. Pulled a zero. The South had already bolted from the DP and kicked its convention out. It did that because the DP wasn't giving the South what it wanted.

I see you're still self-imprisoned in this ridiculous dichotomy-world where every human is a member of one or the other of only two possible political parties and that everybody MUST belong to one, solely because you don't have the basic intelligence to see any other possibilities, or the historical curiosity to find out about them, which ignorance is nothing new. You have no political party registration numbers for Confederate (or Union) soldiers at all, a large number of whom were too young to vote anyway. MORE morevover, once the various states seceded and until they were reinstated back into the Union years later, the Confederacy was not part of the United States. So it had no system of political parties anyway.

Another fun fact -- the states of Tennessee, Kentucky and Virginia (which included what is now West Virginia) voted for John Bell of the Constitutional Union Party, an offshoot of the Whigs, who was against the expansion of slavery and against secession. Matter of fact this area of western North Carolina, when put to a referendum, voted against secession too and stayed loyal to the Union. So you're pulling all of this out of your ass in lieu of the history book you don't own.

Republicans did not exist in the South because no one in the south would stand as a delegate...they hated Republicans because they were the party of abolition...the ending of slavery...

Yep. Republicans were flaming liberals back then.

And ironically given the current rhetoric, they were the party of Big Government too, a legacy they inherited from the Whigs.