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

[Theowl32]

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

Here is just one example.
How the West African slave trade was well established before Europeans got involved. Long before.
Of course the Trans Saharan slave trade is NEVER taught or even addressed by liberals.



Here is another one.
How many believe hitler was this Christian right winger? He wasn't.


How about the truth about the Crusades? How it was the greedy WHITE Christians that INVADED Africa for gold?



Just read 1984 and see how we are all being enslaved mentally. How many are too happy being enslaved. How the truth is that frightening to people.

This is politics too. Not history. Since history ought to be about facts. This is about politics.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The left gets quite a few things wrong on history, some left loon on here tried to convince me the Soviet Union broke the pact with Nazi Germany and started the war between the two. Freaking dumbass

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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.

 

[Peach]

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

Here is just one example.
How the West African slave trade was well established before Europeans got involved. Long before.
Of course the Trans Saharan slave trade is NEVER taught or even addressed by liberals.



Here is another one.
How many believe hitler was this Christian right winger? He wasn't.


How about the truth about the Crusades? How it was the greedy WHITE Christians that INVADED Africa for gold?



Just read 1984 and see how we are all being enslaved mentally. How many are too happy being enslaved. How the truth is that frightening to people.

This is politics too. Not history. Since history ought to be about facts. This is about politics.

Hitler USED the Christian claim to gain power; after Hindenburg died, Christians were also persecuted. Never a genuine Socialist, he was neither right nor left. His political beliefs were dictatorship by Hitler(.)

 

[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.

 

[Theowl32]

It is pretty funny how the liberals laugh at their own ignorance.

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

Like the cherokee, seminole, Choctaw, chickasaw, Catawba and Creek tribes were slave owners and fought for the confederates.

Why is it you suppose the left don't know that and laugh at their own stupidity?

 

[Pogo]

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

Here is just one example.
How the West African slave trade was well established before Europeans got involved. Long before.
Of course the Trans Saharan slave trade is NEVER taught or even addressed by liberals.



Here is another one.
How many believe hitler was this Christian right winger? He wasn't.


How about the truth about the Crusades? How it was the greedy WHITE Christians that INVADED Africa for gold?



Just read 1984 and see how we are all being enslaved mentally. How many are too happy being enslaved. How the truth is that frightening to people.

This is politics too. Not history. Since history ought to be about facts. This is about politics.

Hitler USED the Christian claim to gain power; after Hindenburg died, Christians were also persecuted. Never a genuine Socialist, he was neither right nor left. His political beliefs were dictatorship by Hitler(.)

Yep, Hitler was the other part of the scale, the pure Authoritarian side. The word "socialist" was already in the name of the party when he joined it. He objected to it but went along for its marketing value (new and trendy term at the time). This ridiculous "Hitler was a socialist" revisionism depends on the sudden suspension of reality into an equally ridiculous premise that Hitler was this honest guy to be taken at his word who would never in a million years engage in something like propaganda, which is absurd.

The actual real Socialists in Germany were the first targets of Hitler's SA "Brownshirts" (which he termed in his angelic I'd-never-use-propaganda style the "Gymnastics and Sports Division") to get them out of the way, and then they were the first political prisoners at Dachau, his first political prison.

 

[Peach]

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

Here is just one example.
How the West African slave trade was well established before Europeans got involved. Long before.
Of course the Trans Saharan slave trade is NEVER taught or even addressed by liberals.



Here is another one.
How many believe hitler was this Christian right winger? He wasn't.


How about the truth about the Crusades? How it was the greedy WHITE Christians that INVADED Africa for gold?



Just read 1984 and see how we are all being enslaved mentally. How many are too happy being enslaved. How the truth is that frightening to people.

This is politics too. Not history. Since history ought to be about facts. This is about politics.

Hitler USED the Christian claim to gain power; after Hindenburg died, Christians were also persecuted. Never a genuine Socialist, he was neither right nor left. His political beliefs were dictatorship by Hitler(.)

Yep, Hitler was the other part of the scale, the pure Authoritarian side. The word "socialist" was already in the name of the party when he joined it. He objected to it but went along for its marketing value (new and trendy term at the time). This ridiculous "Hitler was a socialist" revisionism depends on the sudden suspension of reality into an equally ridiculous premise that Hitler was this honest guy to be taken at his word who would never in a million years engage in something like propaganda, which is absurd.

The actual real Socialists in Germany were the first targets of Hitler's SA "Brownshirts" (which he termed in his angelic I'd-never-use-propaganda style the "Gymnastics and Sports Division") to get them out of the way, and then they were the first political prisoners at Dachau, his first political prison.

That is history, never a CON subject. : )

 

[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, carrying a total of one state (Missouri) 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.

 

[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...

 

[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....

 

[easyt65]

You don't have to 'wonder'. Walk down the street and do your own 'Man on the Street' segment and ask young people any question about the Constitution, our founding Fathers, etc... It will make you cry....

 

[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........

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

Here is just one example.
How the West African slave trade was well established before Europeans got involved. Long before.
Of course the Trans Saharan slave trade is NEVER taught or even addressed by liberals.



Here is another one.
How many believe hitler was this Christian right winger? He wasn't.


How about the truth about the Crusades? How it was the greedy WHITE Christians that INVADED Africa for gold?



Just read 1984 and see how we are all being enslaved mentally. How many are too happy being enslaved. How the truth is that frightening to people.

This is politics too. Not history. Since history ought to be about facts. This is about politics.

History has ALWAYS been written by people with opinions. The sooner you accept this, the sooner you can do your own research. Everyone does it. So you're going to play the card of "it's the left, it's the left", and act like the right never change history. Oh please.

 

[hadit]

It is pretty funny how the liberals laugh at their own ignorance.

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

Like the cherokee, seminole, Choctaw, chickasaw, Catawba and Creek tribes were slave owners and fought for the confederates.

Why is it you suppose the left don't know that and laugh at their own stupidity?

Because we don't allow nuance when we look at historical people and events. We've reduced everything and everyone to a soundbite level, in which a person or event is entirely virtuous or entirely evil. The truth is always somewhere in the middle.

America was founded by a mix of people, some just wanting a place where they could live free from tyranny or religious persecution, some desiring to work with the indigenous people, some wanting only what riches they could find and take, and some wanting to conquer. Along the way, horrendous things were done and virtuous things were done. Eventually, we hammered out the country we have now, and we did a pretty darn good job at it.

Everyone is a complex mix of good and bad motivations and actions, neither totally virtuous nor totally evil. It would behoove us to remember that.

 

[Pogo]

Generally, history books written before 1970 are safest.

A telling remark, since that's the same time the idea of "question authority" took life, where the idea of blindly swallowing whatever THE MAN tells you finally got pushed aside. Again, the Cult of Ignorance goes into convulsions at any hint that what you've been taught may not be all it's cracked up to be.

Which is ironic --- the authoritarian sycophants are skeered shitless at the idea of skepticism and independent thought, yet they go out and invent all these alt-histories about Hitler and Indians and slaves and the Klan and political parties, and think anybody's gonna buy it. You can't sell what you don't believe in.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Pogo]

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.