Lies they told you in history class

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT
 

Glass Joe the Champ:

Xmaspast:

Don't forget that the Lusitania was carrying ammunition. They never told us that in school. They always tried to make it seem like the Germans just upped and sank an ocean liner for the hell of it.

As proof of ignorance, I didn't know that till you posted that. You re-learn things everyday I guess.

Wow wow hang on a second, was that ever confirmed? I remember some theories stating the second explosion was coal dust in the next storage area- was this ever disproved?

This isn't history class, but I remember arguing with the teacher and the entire class because he said that the moon doesn't rotate while simultaneously saying that the moon always has the same side facing the earth. The latter statement means that the moon DOES rotate, with a period of rotation equal to the period of revolution.

But I digress. Anyway, the whole Columbus thing, and thinking that the earth is flat. We also never really went deep into the American Civil War or the reasons for it, which go a lot deeper than "the South had slaves." For that, they never outright-lied, just omitted a LOT.

Love history, always have.
Lies (my) history (teachers) told me...
Actually, having gone to a grammar school, years 7-10, my history was pretty good. The staff could decide what history they taught - rather than the national carriculum. Also helped that all our history teachers loved their subject, and the departmental head was a published author.

Then we get to GCSE and the national history course (OCR).
Too many to mention, but I'll just say OCR failed to mention (our coursework was on WW1, whilst the exams were International Relations 1919-1941)The British and Turkish casualties at Gallipoli, The Vich French, how many Russians Stalin not Hitler had killed, the classic Germans=Nazis + Nazis = Germans, failing to mention Nazi (or similar fascist movements) in other nations...

A Level wasn't that bad.
For example -
People speaks as if the 1917 October Revolution in Russia was a bloody event, with Lenin's masterplan creating a bloodbath as the Reds brutally murdered their way into power.
In actual fact:
A series of cockups by the Provisional Government of Kerensky and the other Political parties allowed the Bolsheviks to be in the perfect position to take power. With the Kornilov Affair alienating the army, and the Bolsheviks now being armed (after Kerensky released them from prison), no-one was willing to defend the government.
As for the bloodshed? Accurate numbers suggest the bloodshed was between 5-10. All of them friendly-fire incidents...

Aidinthel:

Justanewguy:
*snip*

Fellow history student here, and I know what you mean. I'm tempted to write up a much larger post replying to all those people but It's after 1 AM and I have class tomorrow. Don't blame them too much: the subject is rather complicated and those who haven't dedicated themselves to it can't really be expected to know it very well for the same reason I can't do calculus. Of course, me not knowing calculus doesn't affect anyone but myself, whereas poor knowledge of history affects political decisions...

Anyway, my point is that you should take such things as a teaching opportunity rather than simply railing against their ignorance.

And maybe take the time to calmly explain to that guy why he is wrong rather than simply declaring him an idiot. (Which, admittedly, was my first impulse as well.)

You're right, I probably should have taken more time in that post. My point was more that people shouldn't simply grasp on to a counter opinion to what they had been taught and assume that it's automatically right, which is what I saw happening. There were so many problems in so many posts that I didn't feel like I had the time or patience to properly address every fallacy, and missing a fallacy or failing to challenge (in my mind, at least) seemed to legitimize it.

In reality, I'd urge all readers to study History, read the primary accounts rather than the secondary or (in many cases) tertiary explanations provided by History text books. This isn't even a simple "left vs right" issue. Every teacher, every school, every book has a bias, and in many cases the only way to get to the truth of the matter is to read every single interpretation of the event. In many cases finding the absolute truth is impossible as the event has been so skewed by time (although in modern history it's a bit easier as there has been less time to lose the truth of the events).

All of this said, I maintain that anyone who thinks History is useless IS an idiot. It may not be gripping, it may not be fun, but it is certainly important. There is a reason that many people repeat the phrase "Those who do not learn from the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them." That phrase is very true.

Knife:

While indeed not all germans were nazis, the first country to be invaded by nazis was Poland in 1939 unless we count the Anschluss (the annexation of Austria) back in 1938, the nazis at no point invaded Germany (though there were a couple attempts at revolutions), Hitler/the nazi party were democratically elected fair and square back in 1933 (though they did some horrible and undemocratic things along the way).

Eh? What about Czechoslovakia? Or more specifically the Sudetenland portion of said country? It's technically a seperate event from the Anschluss.

Squilookle:

Glass Joe the Champ:

Xmaspast:

Don't forget that the Lusitania was carrying ammunition. They never told us that in school. They always tried to make it seem like the Germans just upped and sank an ocean liner for the hell of it.

As proof of ignorance, I didn't know that till you posted that. You re-learn things everyday I guess.

Wow wow hang on a second, was that ever confirmed? I remember some theories stating the second explosion was coal dust in the next storage area- was this ever disproved?

Going off of Wikipedia, the second explosion was NOT because of the ammo, but they were carrying a few million rifle rounds, which are classed as non-explosive. On top of that, the coal dust is, according to Wikipedia, too damp to have been the cause of the second explosion as well.

richetensor:

rayen020:
i don't know that i ever learned any lies because i've always had an interest in history and usually fact checked anything taught to me. something that has always interested me though is how the history syllabus usually went for me though. (this is in the US)

Learning period of six weeks
1)native american studies
2)american colonization and revolution
3)the US consitution/1780-1811
4)1815-1860
5)1870-1914
6)1919-1939/civil rights movement

ummm... not to complain but aren't we missing a couple of really major events on here? like world/nation changing events? oh yeah and i suppose i got the old oversimplification of the American Civil War being fought because of slavery.

Actually, that is not much of an oversimplification. You often here about the Civil War being fought over the issue of States' Rights, but if you refer to contemporary documents (the "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union" being the least subtle of these), you find that the specific right at issue was the right to own slaves. You sometimes hear that cultural differences contributed to-or were even the cause of-the Civil War, but much of the modern 'dixified' Southern culture developed during and after Reconstruction. Prior to the Civil War, there were relatively few significant cultural differences between the North and South (slavery aside). Indeed, this lack of cultural distinction is often credited with the destruction of Southern morale during the period from 1863-64. As the exigencies of war forced the Confederacy to dismantle the institution of slavery, to the point of offering black slaves freedom in return for military service, the South-or rather, its people-having lost the very thing it was fighting for, also lost the will to continue fighting.

The myth of the Lost Cause is just that - a myth. The Civil War was fought over the right to continue owning slaves, as the Confederacy itself readily admitted at the time.

um, the south was farm land mostly made up of indentured servants, slaves, and plantation owners, while the north had mostly "middle class" factory workers, they had different predominant religions, different set up of local government,different evolution of speach, they are by all definitions different cultures. plus, it was a huge jockying of powers between the north and the south, which were basically different countries at the time. With the 2/3 count on slaves, the south was set to swamp the north in representatives. If you really think all those 1800 era white people on the yankee side where fighting for slaves, ur as wrong as could be. Hell we'd hardly fight for blacks 100 years later.for the southern leaders though, it's just hard to go infront of a crowd and say "now we need more power just for powers sake, go die for it alright? great" when you could just say you're fighting for freedom... again... it's an occuring theme, america distorting our reasonings for war...

on topic, i love american history just for the blatant propaganda. we won wwII singlehandedly, the british were pricks and deserved a rebellion, JFK was a great president, hell we're the country that tried to hide the fact our president had polio. My favorite though isn't something that we're told, it's the things we're not told. your basic american history curriculum overlooks a dozen wars we fought in that made us look like right pricks

chaosyoshimage:
Everything about Thomas Edison. That dude stole nearly all of his inventions from the real genius Nikola Tesla. Hell, he impeded Tesla's progress in various fields, such as his work with alternating current. But did they teach us any of that? Nope it's the tired Edison invented the lightbulb shtick...

I heard that Nikola Tesla wanted to desperately work with Edison so Edison agreed and made Tesla do all of his gardening work. At least Tesla had David Bowie play him in The Prestige, beat that Edison!

one of my elementary teachers once said that during the cold war there where no actuall wars where the soviet union or the USA supported one side against the other. I never took that teacher seriosly again.

Many people believe that the American war of independance was started for precisely that reason (independance). However there is evidence that Washington and the Generals infact wanted to stay part of the Empire and even toasted the health of Britain over dinner. They were only opposed to the king, who lets face it was completely insane. (see the book: America Empire of Liberty, yes I know the Author is British but the book is well researched)

That there were bad guys and good guys in post-Napoleonic Wars.

Yeah, Austria was so bad with its liberalizing, pluralizing society with no Colonies to brutally suppressed.

hmm all I know about history is that when Americans went to Puerto Rico, known at the time as San Juan, the natives gave them housing and proposed they poison the water and animals that Spaniards were eating so that when the Americans invade they wouldn't have to worry too much.
They did just that and ever since America has kept hold of the island, back then it was a good strategic point. I don't know why they still keep it today

ANYWAYS in history class they told me that Spaniards weren't a threat to US troops but they never really explained why or that the US didn't really do anything except wait for the natives to take care of the Spaniards. Or that the natives were using biochemical warfare... not as developed as we have today but still effective

Victim of the Texas public school. It is a scavenger hunt to find out what we WEREN'T lied to about. Covered religion(Christianity) more in history than we did any other part.

pumuckl:
on topic, i love american history just for the blatant propaganda. we won wwII singlehandedly, the british were pricks and deserved a rebellion, JFK was a great president, hell we're the country that tried to hide the fact our president had polio. My favorite though isn't something that we're told, it's the things we're not told. your basic american history curriculum overlooks a dozen wars we fought in that made us look like right pricks

Tell me do they teach you why the white house is white?

Squilookle:

Glass Joe the Champ:

Xmaspast:

Don't forget that the Lusitania was carrying ammunition. They never told us that in school. They always tried to make it seem like the Germans just upped and sank an ocean liner for the hell of it.

As proof of ignorance, I didn't know that till you posted that. You re-learn things everyday I guess.

Wow wow hang on a second, was that ever confirmed? I remember some theories stating the second explosion was coal dust in the next storage area- was this ever disproved?

I believe the bit about ammo being onboard comes from shipping manifests declassified after the war, irrespective of whether said ammo contributed to blowing the ship up.

Never did talk much about the indians (native americans). Must have been a terrifying few hundred years for them; new plagues wiping out most of your population, and then waves of strange new people overrunning your land and forcing you inexorably westward.

One of the biggest myths taught in United States History class is about the importance of the colonies. My early middle school teachers made it out as if the American colonies were a fabulous gem in the British Empire when really, it was a backwater that England wasn't too distraught over losing.

England tried to trade its gains in the seven years war (French and Indian war for the U.S.) back to France for one small island in the Caribbean. France said no, wasn't worth it.

Also, George Washington was not a brilliant general. He lost most of the battle he fought in. Really, American independence was won be because England felt it wasn't worth having so many troops tied up in an unending campaign with a backwater fighting force thousands of miles away. (that sounds kinda familiar...)

Satsuki666:

Tell me do they teach you why the white house is white?

no they do not, though we're not really sure if there was a reason the white house was painted white

C. Cain:

Knife:

While indeed not all germans were nazis, the first country to be invaded by nazis was Poland in 1939 unless we count the Anschluss (the annexation of Austria) back in 1938, the nazis at no point invaded Germany (though there were a couple attempts at revolutions), Hitler/the nazi party were democratically elected fair and square back in 1933 (though they did some horrible and undemocratic things along the way).

Eh? What about Czechoslovakia? Or more specifically the Sudetenland portion of said country? It's technically a seperate event from the Anschluss.

Yes there was also Czechoslovakia following the Anschluss in 1938, but similarly to Austria there was no military conflict involved. The other nations thrown them to the dogs. And Czechoslovakia basically gave up on that territory.
So I stand by my previous statement that Poland was the first country to be invaded by the nazis.

jonyboy13:
Important to mention, I live in Israel.

The amount of BS they shove in our brains as kids is huge even compared to America.
Obviously, we were taught the Israeli side of the whole Middle East thingy, but we were never taught the other side (not that it's MOSTLY right, but still should've learned it)

My biggest problem is not that we were lied to, but that we didn't even learn about most of the important history, and if we did it was brief, not in high school or in important tests.

Barely about WW1, only about the holocaust and not WW2 in general, not about anything important in Europe, not AT ALL about the US. We were basically taught only about Jews in the world, in every possible country.

I was born in Israel, left when I was 6, so I didn't have history there, but that's pretty much my Canadian history class right there, just substitute Canada for Jews. I did have a good teacher, not his fault the curriculum is stupid.

octafish:
That, when white people colonised Australia the indigenous population just sort of evaporated.

Wait, you seriously got told that? I've been getting the "you're white so you should feel bad about this stuff you didn't do" crap since primary school.

Evil Alpaca:
One of the biggest myths taught in United States History class is about the importance of the colonies. My early middle school teachers made it out as if the American colonies were a fabulous gem in the British Empire when really, it was a backwater that England wasn't too distraught over losing.

England tried to trade its gains in the seven years war (French and Indian war for the U.S.) back to France for one small island in the Caribbean. France said no, wasn't worth it.

Also, George Washington was not a brilliant general. He lost most of the battle he fought in. Really, American independence was won be because England felt it wasn't worth having so many troops tied up in an unending campaign with a backwater fighting force thousands of miles away. (that sounds kinda familiar...)

George Washington was a great general the same reason a coach is a great coach. They pull off the wins, regardless of numbers. yes england could of won if they diddn't pull out, but they diddn't. and the reason they even had to admit defeat was because washington was a a genius at maneuvering his army, and retreating. but it's not because colonies have no values, but that there was a giant indian cake to cut up that was more profitable. Colonies where lifeblood to european nations, where it's like locking up two dozen 10 yeards olds in a closet. colonies where like opening up the closet and showing them the backyard, colonies where MASSIVELY important during the COLONIal period.

England's pretty good for not being biased when they teach you stuff. You'll get the odd rough patch but that's usually because of the teacher, rather than the course content and syllabus.

I've taken history since I could, currently doing it at A-Level, and everything I've been taught has been true.

Machati:
Most of what you know about nazis. Not Hitler or the higher-ups but the people and a lot of the soldiers..
I've taken plenty of history classes and the nazi-german part is alwaays overgeneralized for the sake of simplification or something.. I don't know why, history classes love talking about nazi germany, you'd think we'd talk more on the views of people in germany at that time..

Basically they're just like "All nazis were evil dicks that hated jews and supported killing them!" I'm American but I have family that lived in Nazi Germany, including my great grandfather that was a nazi soldier. He worked by the trains. They didn't tell him what was in the trains. He only found out on his own and when he gave water to emaciated jews he was courtmartialed. Apparently he was supposed to be executed for doing that but because he had a wife and kids he wasn't killed for it.

History classes, or my history classes anyways, always skimmed over the opinions of actual nazi citizens and soldiers. Most people I meet think the nazi people were like sheep that knew about and were totally cool with everything Hitler did. It wasn't really like some small minority of rebels that Hitler had to keep quiet. Not to imply that people talked freely to each other about not liking the Nazi party, my grandmother wasn't even comfortable talking about this sort of stuff until she was dying.

I guess it sounds kind of "duh" when you think on it but my point remains... and considering how easily accepted it is in video games to just have nazis as the easy evil villain, I'd say my history class isn't the only one that taught people that all nazi soldiers were jew hating bastards.

While the Nazis coated over the whole genocide thing, Germany was very anti-Semitic. The people joined in attacking Jewish shops and boycotting them. They may not have been genocide standard, many Nazi officers and soldiers went insane because of what they did, they weren't about to shout at the Nazis for what was going on. They were against the euthanasia policy and Hitler-eugenics. So much so that the Nazis had to 'stop'[1] doing it.

As well as that, Germany's secret police, the Gestapo, was incredibly small compared to popular belief. There was around 20 Gestapo to a city, I think it was, and they just responded to accusations made by the German people. Neighbour's a Jew? Call the Gestapo. Neighbour criticised the Nazis? Call the Gestapo. Neighbour let their dog shit on the front lawn? Call the Gestapo and tell them they're a communist. The German people were very compliant with the Nazi's social and racial polices. Parents would send their kids to the Hitler Youth who would then be taught to attack Jews in class for being Jewish.

The only people who fought back against the Nazis were the Edelweiss Pirates. A group of kids who would do everything the Hitler Youth did without the racism and adding in 'beat up Nazis'.

[1] Yeah, they didn't stop. They just started covering it up better

Knife:

C. Cain:

Knife:

While indeed not all germans were nazis, the first country to be invaded by nazis was Poland in 1939 unless we count the Anschluss (the annexation of Austria) back in 1938, the nazis at no point invaded Germany (though there were a couple attempts at revolutions), Hitler/the nazi party were democratically elected fair and square back in 1933 (though they did some horrible and undemocratic things along the way).

Eh? What about Czechoslovakia? Or more specifically the Sudetenland portion of said country? It's technically a seperate event from the Anschluss.

Yes there was also Czechoslovakia following the Anschluss in 1938, but similarly to Austria there was no military conflict involved. The other nations thrown them to the dogs. And Czechoslovakia basically gave up on that territory.
So I stand by my previous statement that Poland was the first country to be invaded by the nazis.

Very well. If you operate on that definition of invasion, I agree with you.

Glass Joe the Champ:
So guys, what kind of lies, if any, did you learn in your history class?

Proper U.S history is way more interesting. Especially the lead up, the dissolution of colonial governments, and the general breakdown in negotiations. The colonies wanted representatives in British parliament, or at the very least autonomy, but I believe this statement pretty much sums up the British attitudes towards the colonies at the time.

"The colonies were acquired with no other view than to be a convenience to us and therefore it can never be imagined that we are to consult their interest preferable to our own."
The London Chronicle - 1764

Also:

They told me that the 'robber barons' like John Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, George B. Cortelyou, James Stillman, and J.P Morgan were corrupt and evil men when in reality they should be hailed as heroes by all accounts. Their contributions to the arts, science, and medicine propelled the world forward for decades and Morgan pretty much ended the Panic of 1907 single handedly. None of them killed anybody, none of them oppressed anybody's free will, none of them started any wars, they gave vast amounts to public works, and they worked together to end multiple economic depressions that made the current situation look like a little dip in revenue.

Every history class I took seemed intent on espousing the great good FDR's New Deal did for the US when, in reality, independent studies have shown that it deepened and extended the depression. It was only ended by our involvement in WWII.

Oh, and that unions somehow magically created the middle class when, in most cases, they were only established after most labor legislation had already been passed. As for that workers rights garbage it's also an interesting point that many unions formed with the implied intent of keeping minorities, women, and the poor from taking over their work, so there you go.

And just to back up my statement on unions http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.t02.htm compare men to women and white workers to minorities. When compared to the nation average these rates are over 4 times worse than normal discrepancies in compensation.

GZGoten:
They did just that and ever since America has kept hold of the island, back then it was a good strategic point. I don't know why they still keep it today

That's been up in the air for a while. They have their own governing body and every once in a while they have an election of whether to become a state or not. By all accounts they're kinda ok with being a territory for the time being. The U.S house passed a resolution stating that Puerto Rico can vote on their legal status, they keep voting to stay a territory. They could become a state or a country if they want to but they don't.

Istvan:
I recall being taught that the US went to war over the sinking of the Lusitania (It said so in our history book)

Lusitania was sunk in 1915
US entered the war in 1917

I know US government likes to work slowly, buuuuuuuuut...

Hey, even with modern communications it took them a year and a half to get round to invading Iraq after Saddam tac-nuked the Twin Towers, and they didn't even have Blackberries back in 1915.

...

*obvious sarcasm OFF*

The only load of crap I recall being taught as historical fact was christian creation mythology. Then again, I dropped history at age 13. It was DULL.

...

itchcrotch:
i'm australian, so in our classes we learn nothing, but i have a relative in the states who, no shit, was taught that saddam hussein was behind 9/11.

So much for sarcasm being obvious.

...

Max Ahriman:
Shockingly i got more than my fair share of detentions after my 2000 word essay on "How you win a war by being more morally loose"

I think the end result was not that "we" won but that "we" didn't lose nearly as hard as "they" did.

...

immortalfrieza:
That history class is important or even slightly relevant to anyone besides historians and people that work in museums. Basically, that history class has any justification for it's existence whatsoever is the lie.

Parts of it are relevant. The reason road signs get defaced and you have to mind your accent and town names in the Pyrenees, the fact that much of Laos is unsafe due to UXO all over the show, the victims of Agent Orange, the on-going messes everywhere from Algeria to Kashmir, tribal resentments in Zimbabwe, the discrepancy between living standards of Frank, Angle, Saxon, Teuton, Dane, Norse, Breton, Celt, Dacian, Roman, Spaniard, Arab, Turk, African, Khmer, Siam, Viet, Cham, Sin, Han, Miao, Japanese, Tibetan, Hmong, Mongol and suchlike "others" and those of natives in North America and so on all have historical bases. Understanding them may help in dealing with them, living with them, avoiding stepping on people's toes or whatever.

Recent history, since the cultural shift away from "King, by the Grace of God" towards democracy in "our" parts of the world, also has a use in avoiding making the same mistakes again. Look up how things went for the US forces in Vietnam. Look up My Lai, 16 March 1968. Look up how things went for Israeli forces in southern Lebanon in the '80s and '90s. Look up the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps massacre. Look up how things went for US forces in Iraq. Look up Abber Qasim Hamza al-Janabi. Look up Fallujah. There's a saying, getting older all the time: "Learn from the mistakes of history or be doomed to repeat them." Know what happened. Understand the mistakes that were made. Learn. Avoid those mistakes.

...

Knife:
While indeed not all germans were nazis, the first country to be invaded by nazis was Poland in 1939 unless we count the Anschluss (the annexation of Austria) back in 1938, the nazis at no point invaded Germany (though there were a couple attempts at revolutions), Hitler/the nazi party were democratically elected fair and square back in 1933 (though they did some horrible and undemocratic things along the way).

I do hope people are learning about the Reichstag fire. It's kind of relevant to more recent events in some ways. *glances sideways at the Patriot Act*

...

itchcrotch:
WW1 never struck my interest. i'll get to it ...

Background and causes: monarchies, treaties and the fact the powerful nations of the time had run out of "rest of the world" to conquer.

Yeah, yeah, maybe it was a little more complicated than that but we're not that much different from wolves in some ways.

I'd be tempted to let Wilfred Owen, Siegfried Sassoon, All Quiet On The Western Front and [i]Blackadder Goes Forth[i] cover it. Feckin' depressing however you look at it.

Personal conjecture: WWI stopped because one side ran out of young men. All the young men went home and went at it like rabbits. 19 to 21 years later, both sides suddenly had lots of young adults again .....

...

thethird0611:
And the few blatant left-winged, atheistic points of fews.

Debating education with someone who can't spell "points of view" seems like a bad idea, so I'll stick to mockery:

"Oh no, blatant atheists! The horror! The horror!"

...

immortalfrieza:
A common defense of history class is the phrase "those who do not learn from the mistakes history are doomed to repeat it." If they insist on making people go through history classes the very least they could do is teach subjects that are relevant to modern society, not things that are anywhere from decades to millenia old.

Fair enough, although I think you have to go back a century in some cases.

Hey, as long as Israel's saying they're allowed to do whatever they want because of The Holocaust The Only Holocaust There Never Was Another Before Or After And Jews Were The Only Victims people ought to know about the Armenians, the other victims, the Naqba and so on. It's only fair, right?

Robert Fisk:
Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, the Ahmadinejad of Israeli politics. Sarcasm aside, Israelis deserve better than this.

...

Evil Alpaca:
My early middle school teachers made it out as if the American colonies were a fabulous gem in the British Empire when really, it was a backwater that England wasn't too distraught over losing.

The whole British Empire was about food. Britain had the worst traditional cuisine you could imagine. The serfs were so far down the heirarchy they had to make do with the bits even the most minor nobles didn't want and a few vegetables that hadn't turned completely to grey mush yet, all stewed together until safely dead. We fought the French for a hundred years and kept kidnapping their patissieres, and from that we got ideas. We fought the Spanish and found out they had their own food, too, and it was also better than ours. Then we went further afield and found India, and you know how Brits like curries. Well, we liked 'em then, too, and set out to conquer every source of awesome food on Earth and bring back all their styles. It went pretty damn well until the other European nations twigged and started fighting us over it. Eventually, wars would bring the whole thing crashing down around us, of course, but by then we'd have worldwide cuisine and fusions thereof and that'd be Mission Accomplished. The reason we didn't try very hard to hang onto North America was ... well, have you tried the natives' traditional food? Shepherd's Pie is less bland.

There were lots of bias in the way we were taught history. Most of which were removed in high school.

There are a few- One, That Adolf Hitler was 1) a German 2) Completely insane 3) The most evil man on earth ever 4) completely ruined Germany forever. All of those i now see as face (Although he comes close in #2 and nearly #3)

And two; That Stalin was 1) Communist 2) Unaminously hated by the russian people 3) Completely ruined the entirety of russia forever 4) Not as evil as Hitler and 5) That Stalin was his real name.

(#1 is really a technicality- he wasnt Communist, he was Stalininst. Which isnt Socialist either, #2 He was liked by a large group of Russians- Although this was also a result of Propaganda. Beside this, they liked Stanlin better than they did Tsar Nicholas the 2nd. #3 If anything, Stalin saved russia. If Stalin hadnt done what he had, Germany would have certainly annihalated Russia in 1941, and from that, won the war. 4# in my opinion, Stalin was worse. Adolf Hitler had a reason to Massacre the Jewish people- even if it was a incredibly weak reason- But Stalin had very little reason. But this is down to personal preference. #5 Stalin was his revolutionary name.)

Do Americans learns about stuff that happened before Columbus discovered America?

redisforever:

jonyboy13:
Important to mention, I live in Israel.

The amount of BS they shove in our brains as kids is huge even compared to America.
Obviously, we were taught the Israeli side of the whole Middle East thingy, but we were never taught the other side (not that it's MOSTLY right, but still should've learned it)

My biggest problem is not that we were lied to, but that we didn't even learn about most of the important history, and if we did it was brief, not in high school or in important tests.

Barely about WW1, only about the holocaust and not WW2 in general, not about anything important in Europe, not AT ALL about the US. We were basically taught only about Jews in the world, in every possible country.

I was born in Israel, left when I was 6, so I didn't have history there, but that's pretty much my Canadian history class right there, just substitute Canada for Jews. I did have a good teacher, not his fault the curriculum is stupid.

I had a really good teacher too that was bound by this stupidity. Couldn't even talk to him after class since teachers (here at least) can't express their political, or any other view, since it can bias the students towards it.

luckily for me i had two amazing history teachers in high school (they taught me all 4 years, different history types) one was welsh and the other was quite possibly my favorite teacher i've ever had, as he taught every side of everything that he could (he'd bring in old veterans from BOTH sides of wars and historians to help illustrate key points.)

and for the welsh teacher we had daily essays to do and weekly papers to turn in over each part of history we were studying, so by the end i ended up typing 139 pages of "study guides" and 145 essays for that class...it was hell of alot of work but it definitely made me get my ass in gear and i can type papers like a boss now when needed.

if i was to ever "learn" a lie that was later debunked, it was probably that saudi arabia is just a desert with not much money or people in it...-_- (7th grade teacher)

Jimmybobjr:
There were lots of bias in the way we were taught history. Most of which were removed in high school.

There are a few- One, That Adolf Hitler was 1) a German 2) Completely insane 3) The most evil man on earth ever 4) completely ruined Germany forever. All of those i now see as face (Although he comes close in #2 and nearly #3)

And two; That Stalin was 1) Communist 2) Unaminously hated by the russian people 3) Completely ruined the entirety of russia forever 4) Not as evil as Hitler and 5) That Stalin was his real name.

(#1 is really a technicality- he wasnt Communist, he was Stalininst. Which isnt Socialist either, #2 He was liked by a large group of Russians- Although this was also a result of Propaganda. Beside this, they liked Stanlin better than they did Tsar Nicholas the 2nd. #3 If anything, Stalin saved russia. If Stalin hadnt done what he had, Germany would have certainly annihalated Russia in 1941, and from that, won the war. 4# in my opinion, Stalin was worse. Adolf Hitler had a reason to Massacre the Jewish people- even if it was a incredibly weak reason- But Stalin had very little reason. But this is down to personal preference. #5 Stalin was his revolutionary name.)

I shall ignore most of your post. That's just too much to get into right now. Let's just concentrate on the following: It can be argued that Hitler was German. Yes, I know he was born in Austria. Yes, I know he aquired 'German' citizenship later in his life. How can he be German, then?

Simple. Back then Austria was considered to be German. In the same manner as Bavaria, the Rhineland or Prussia were considered to be German. Granted they weren't in the political entity that was the German Empire/ Weimar Republic, but they didn't have a distinct cultural identity. This identity developed mostly after WWII.

GZGoten:
They did just that and ever since America has kept hold of the island, back then it was a good strategic point. I don't know why they still keep it today

That's been up in the air for a while. They have their own governing body and every once in a while they have an election of whether to become a state or not. By all accounts they're kinda ok with being a territory for the time being. The U.S house passed a resolution stating that Puerto Rico can vote on their legal status, they keep voting to stay a territory. They could become a state or a country if they want to but they don't.

still what benefit does US get from it? do they give us $ or soldiers or anything worth the while? or are they more of a liability. Don't get me wrong I appreciate The Mars Volta and Coheed & Cambria as much as the next guy but I just don't see the benefit for us as a country, and in that matter although to a lesser extent Hawaii too

no they do not, though we're not really sure if there was a reason the white house was painted white

As I understand it, we burned it during the war of 1812, after reconstruction there was still a lot of fire damage, so it was painted white.

I also think (think!) that the term White House didn't come into common use until the late 1800s/early 1900s...

I have no inclination to confirm either fact with my own research as, ultimately, they're both meaningless bits of trivia. However I do know a fair old bit about the war of 1812, given I wrote my dissertation on it at Uni.

(Main Conclusion: It was a colossal waste of everyone's time and effort).

Summy:
Do Americans learns about stuff that happened before Columbus discovered America?

do you mean about the americas? yes we do. we had to memorize many of the tribes that inhabited the lands before hand (i used to know that damn map that had a rough sketch of who "claimed" what land tribe to tribe)

and if you meant it in the literal sense of learning about stuff outside of america, yes we do, we have entire classes dedicated to it.

aashell13:
Never did talk much about the indians (native americans). Must have been a terrifying few hundred years for them; new plagues wiping out most of your population, and then waves of strange new people overrunning your land and forcing you inexorably westward.

i know, all they ever talked about really was the trail of tears. in the fourth grade i had to do a biography, so i chose sitting bull cuz it sounded sweet.... i've been depressed since. we screwed them so totally and enthusiastically... it was like a guy coming up to you, raping you, forces you to move out of state 6 times, then gives you small pox and kills you.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked