Recommended book: Lies My Teacher Told Me

[RetiredGySgt]

I never ever said that the prison camps didn't exist.

Of course they did.

And many were liberated by the allied soldiers.

So what is it you doubt about the holocaust? That people actually died?

Of course people died at the prison/work camps.

They died of starvation, disease, over work, and some where executed.

I just don't believe the current facts support that 6 million parished at these camps.

Plus the evidence is very weak that the prison/ work camps were giant death factorys complete with gas chambers and furnaces for mass extermanation

13 million died in the camps dumb ass, not just Jews either. The evidence is anything BUT weak, we have first hand accounts from survivors and in some cases guards, we have first hand accounts from allied and Soviet liberators of those camps. We have court records of trials with evidence and testimony also. We have pictures, documents and much more. Your denial is ignorance.

 

[Sunni Man]

So what is it you doubt about the holocaust? That people actually died?

Of course people died at the prison/work camps.

They died of starvation, disease, over work, and some where executed.

I just don't believe the current facts support that 6 million parished at these camps.

Plus the evidence is very weak that the prison/ work camps were giant death factorys complete with gas chambers and furnaces for mass extermanation

13 million died in the camps dumb ass, not just Jews either. The evidence is anything BUT weak, we have first hand accounts from survivors and in some cases guards, we have first hand accounts from allied and Soviet liberators of those camps. We have court records of trials with evidence and testimony also. We have pictures, documents and much more. Your denial is ignorance.

The victors write the history of any conflict

WWII was no different

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Ever read A People's History of the United States?

I have, ED.

I took classes with Zinn. He was my GF's academic advisor.

NO WAY. That is awesome, Editec!!!

It's a great book, but it's not really a great history book.

The book really isn't a historic study, it's more his political POV applied to the some parts of the history of the US.

The study of history can be the study of nearly anything, be it a grand overview or an indepth study of one small aspect of something in history

It's not just what the governments did, it's also what the people did, for example.

History is really everything that happened.

Now, for most people history is merely the grand overview of what happens to nations, and that's certainly okay.

One can study the history of America by studying what the leaders do, or one can also study American history by studying what the lives of the people were like, how what the government did or did not do effected those people.

Both approaches are equally valid, but they're likely to bring you to very different POVs about American history.

Incidently both POV's can be correct even though they can be very different.

That's exactly why things like woman's history or Black studies, or economic history, or social history are as important as the grand overview approach to history.

I agree that the book is seen through a particular lens, but it's like what you say, instead of focusing on what leaders do, it's more focused on people, and people movements, and popular struggles, and just generally on things you don't hear too much about. Either way, we can both agree it is recommendable reading.

 

[Bfgrn]

The best truth I have found is Armed Madhouse by Greg Palast.
Another is The Secret History of the American Empire By John Perkins

I refrain from posting John Perkins interviews, there are some great ones...the right wing nationalists would either have a heart attack or go into full denial...

Probably the later...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I like James Loewen's beliefs that history should NOT be taught as straightforward facts and dates to memorize, but an in-depth analysis of the context and root causes of events.

I advocate that approach for all subjects...it's much more important to have knowledge with depth and scope that it is to know dates and facts...too often students are taught to pass a test...it creates a disconnect to WHY events occur...

It is the root cause of WHY our education system is falling behind the rest of the world.

Our failure to support the study of history (and the other social sciences, and humanities too) is the reason that our nation is rapidly becoming a tyrannical shithole, I'll grant that.

We're so ******* hot to turn out science and math majors to turn out bombs and Iphones that we don't really know who to bomb or who to call when things get wierd.

A people who don't have a good sense of their own history are sheep waiting to be being driven to the slaughter.

That's so DEEP... and if it wasn't being expressed by an individual who advocates for everything that America stands against, it would be worthy of note.

 

[editec]

Ever read A People's History of the United States?

I have, ED.

I took classes with Zinn. He was my GF's academic advisor.

NO WAY. That is awesome, Editec!!!

It's a great book, but it's not really a great history book.

The book really isn't a historic study, it's more his political POV applied to the some parts of the history of the US.

The study of history can be the study of nearly anything, be it a grand overview or an indepth study of one small aspect of something in history

It's not just what the governments did, it's also what the people did, for example.

History is really everything that happened.

Now, for most people history is merely the grand overview of what happens to nations, and that's certainly okay.

One can study the history of America by studying what the leaders do, or one can also study American history by studying what the lives of the people were like, how what the government did or did not do effected those people.

Both approaches are equally valid, but they're likely to bring you to very different POVs about American history.

Incidently both POV's can be correct even though they can be very different.

That's exactly why things like woman's history or Black studies, or economic history, or social history are as important as the grand overview approach to history.

I agree that the book is seen through a particular lens, but it's like what you say, instead of focusing on what leaders do, it's more focused on people, and people movements, and popular struggles, and just generally on things you don't hear too much about. Either way, we can both agree it is recommendable reading.

Yes, I can certainly recommend it.

But only for people who already know their American history fairly well, first.

Now why do I say that?

Because otherwise it doesn't really make much sense. It makes American appear to be something completely different than what it really is...very complex and very nuanced.

Just as I would recommmend that people understand the basic schematic of European history before they decide to study the holocaust, so too I do not recommend People's history until they do understand it in some depth

You start at the top of the history heap, in the most general terms and then as you understand where things are and why in history, then you start focusing on the deeper issues and editorials about what that history really means.

Sadly, this is not what's happening.

This certainly isn't Zinn's fault, but I went to BU with far too many people who really didn't really know AM history EXCEPT except in that childish way that most people think they know it, and then get outraged when they discover that the floundering fathers didn't actually shit marble.

But yeah, Howie was an exceptional cool guy with a very deep understanding of history as well as political science.

Not my favorite BU prof, but certainly one of the best I had.

 

[editec]

The victors write the history of any conflict

WWII was no different

There's still another myth about history that people who do not understand it very well like to imagine is true.

No the victors do not write the history.

You're confusing propagandists for historians, and believe me when I tell you that they're an entirely different breed.

Propagandists are heretics as far as real historians are concerned.

Historians write the honest history, and serious historians don't take sides, they simply uncover facts as honestly as they can.

 

[JBeukema]

History is rarely written by historians free of the influence and guidence of politicians and statemens, and they more oft writethe polemics of their masters than the truth as aresult.

 

[Unkotare]

I like James Loewen's beliefs that history should NOT be taught as straightforward facts and dates to memorize, but an in-depth analysis of the context and root causes of events.

I advocate that approach for all subjects...it's much more important to have knowledge with depth and scope that it is to know dates and facts...too often students are taught to pass a test...it creates a disconnect to WHY events occur...

It is the root cause of WHY our education system is falling behind the rest of the world.

Our failure to support the study of history (and the other social sciences, and humanities too) is the reason that our nation is rapidly becoming a tyrannical shithole, I'll grant that.

We're so ******* hot to turn out science and math majors to turn out bombs and Iphones that we don't really know who to bomb or who to call when things get wierd.

A people who don't have a good sense of their own history are sheep waiting to be being driven to the slaughter.

So why are you against the Holocaust being examined and historically debated???

I'm not.

What I'm against is people like you who apparently know nothing about history pretending that just because you've read some lying nonsense I must forget everything I know about history and pretend to give that nonsense credibility.

Here's a ******* wake-call for you, sport.

My first father-inlaw actually liberated one the camps that your fake historians swear never existed.

If you want to believe lies, be my guest.

But understand that you'll never convince me that everything I know about that history is wrong because I actually know (or knew since they're dying off, now) people who were there.

So let's recap who I am why I belive what I believe, shall we?

I am an historian who not only studied the history of NAZI germany in university, but I also personally knew two survivers (tatoos intact) and one liberator of the death camps that the NAZIs created. These were not caual relationships, I KNEW these people.

You're the world is flat historical nonsese just isn't going to wash with me, sport.

What's more I doubt even you are stupid enough to believe the blather you're attempting to pass off as fact.

.