History is the Memory of States

[Oglethorpe]

I've gotten into a couple of civilized arguments (as I try my hardest to do) about the founding fathers, and even important historical figures beforehand.

Henry Kissinger said in one of his books, "History is the memory of states".

I'm in the process of reading Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States". While the content of the book is history received by publications, and both 1st and 3rd party accounts of the events contained therein, it's understood to be accurate and corroborated as such across different media.

I find it very unfortunate that as schoolchildren we get a skewed view of American history. Books in public schools are funded by the state, and not surprisingly, though parochial schools are not state-funded, they use the same texts. It's painfully evident to me that we are monitored as to what the government thinks we ought and ought not to know.

We were having a discussion in another thread and I was corrected to say that I hadn't done research and that my speaking negatively of the founding fathers was ill-advised as they had dedicated much time and money towards their cause (in fact dying in debt). My argument was that the founding fathers established a government designed to keep the rich minority rich and the poor majority poor (which is absolutely true).

The truth is that Thomas Jefferson died in debt because he spent all his money building Monticello estate, which was his home and plantation for (and these are wikipedia number quotes so don't hold me to it) as many as 600 slaves. He also inherited debt from his dead father, which he split with his siblings. The only debt he incurred as a part of government establishment or monetary contribution was to will his estate to the Navy upon his death.

I also find it disturbing that (as an American with Italian heritage) there's a "Columbus Day" celebrated here. The fact is that Columbus committed such atrocities that, had his subjects been looked upon as human beings (which they most certainly were not), he'd have been convicted of hundreds (maybe even thousands) of counts of murder.

As kids, we learn about WW2 and Nazi Germany, but I wonder how Germans are educated on the same historical events. I wonder how other nations are educated American events, say Hiroshima/Nagasaki in Japanese schools, for example.

I want this to be a discussion on the memory of states being taught as history to children in schools. I am not spewing Anti-US sentiment around the boards looking to be painted as an America-hater. I am a proud US military employee and a happy resident of the great state of New Jersey.

I think it would be a great discussion.

[DistortedPenguin]

I've gotten into a couple of civilized arguments (as I try my hardest to do) about the founding fathers, and even important historical figures beforehand.

Henry Kissinger said in one of his books, "History is the memory of states".

I'm in the process of reading Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States". While the content of the book is history received by publications, and both 1st and 3rd party accounts of the events contained therein, it's understood to be accurate and corroborated as such across different media.

I find it very unfortunate that as schoolchildren we get a skewed view of American history. Books in public schools are funded by the state, and not surprisingly, though parochial schools are not state-funded, they use the same texts. It's painfully evident to me that we are monitored as to what the government thinks we ought and ought not to know.

We were having a discussion in another thread and I was corrected to say that I hadn't done research and that my speaking negatively of the founding fathers was ill-advised as they had dedicated much time and money towards their cause (in fact dying in debt). My argument was that the founding fathers established a government designed to keep the rich minority rich and the poor majority poor (which is absolutely true).

The truth is that Thomas Jefferson died in debt because he spent all his money building Monticello estate, which was his home and plantation for (and these are wikipedia number quotes so don't hold me to it) as many as 600 slaves. He also inherited debt from his dead father, which he split with his siblings. The only debt he incurred as a part of government establishment or monetary contribution was to will his estate to the Navy upon his death.

I also find it disturbing that (as an American with Italian heritage) there's a "Columbus Day" celebrated here. The fact is that Columbus committed such atrocities that, had his subjects been looked upon as human beings (which they most certainly were not), he'd have been convicted of hundreds of counts of murder.

As kids, we learn about WW2 and Nazi Germany, but I wonder how Germans are educated on the same historical events. I wonder how other nations are educated American events, say Hiroshima/Nagasaki in Japanese schools, for example.

I want this to be a discussion on the memory of states being taught as history to children in schools. I am not spewing Anti-US sentiment around the boards looking to be painted as an America-hater. I am a proud US military employee and a happy resident of the great state of New Jersey.

I think it would be a great discussion.

If your from New Jersey and proud of it I'll never call you anti-American unless you jump up and start screaming Allahu-akbar.

That aside the "atrocities" of Columbus are now being taught to elementry children in areas of the western US. As well as such things as Americas inactions in WWII to help the Jewish people and the so-called mass murder of the Japanese with the A-Bomb as well as the enslavment of many Japanese on US soil during that time.

Sure we, America, have a darker side then what we would like to think but if we continue to let the progressive-liberals control the textbook industry our children will grow up thinking we are all the spawn of satan.

[Oglethorpe]

Sure we, America, have a darker side then what we would like to think but if we continue to let the progressive-liberals control the textbook industry our children will grow up thinking we are all the spawn of satan.

Right, but which is the lesser of two evils? I believe we'd be naive to think that in our own country, in its history, that we never committed any atrocities. We'd be the lone exception in the history of the world.

Give me the whole truth, unbiased, and let me make up my own mind about the country. What has happened in the past does not mean that we are living (or being governed) unjustly in the present.

[DistortedPenguin]

Right, but which is the lesser of two evils? I believe we'd be naive to think that in our own country, in its history, that we never committed any atrocities. We'd be the lone exception in the history of the world.

Give me the whole truth, unbiased, and let me make up my own mind about the country. What has happened in the past does not mean that we are living (or being governed) unjustly in the present.

Oh I agree wholeheartedly. I wish they would tell the whole truth regardless of the picture that comes out of it. Why the progressive-liberals insist on painting one that vilifies America I have but one idea.

[leadduck]

Your comments about Monticello which I discussed in the other thread, are quite true. There seems to be a strong movement today, to correct the errors we've been taught in history. Unfortunately, this sometimes results in the reation of new errors. Some in theri zeal, seem to place greater emphasis on challenging old teachings than on actually seeking the truth. Zinn's work may be based on first or second hand reports, but even an eye witness is a filter. We can never know what is true in history. We can only debate it.

[Oglethorpe]

Your comments about Monticello which I discussed in the other thread, are quite true. There seems to be a strong movement today, to correct the errors we've been taught in history. Unfortunately, this sometimes results in the reation of new errors. Some in theri zeal, seem to place greater emphasis on challenging old teachings than on actually seeking the truth. Zinn's work may be based on first or second hand reports, but even an eye witness is a filter. We can never know what is true in history. We can only debate it.

Your argument is fair, but to broadly discount an entire book of first-hand accounts is to much of a blanket statement for my comfort level. I do agree that there is nothing we can do about the past as it stands now, but a far greater injustice has been done by hiding it from entire generations of Americans. No arguing that point.

[treydampier]

I responded to this in the other thread. Like I said there, Howard Zinn's book is skewed as all history books are. It is a great read and far better than most history books, however it is still skewed. The truth of Columbus and his atrocities is a sad commentary, but the truth is that the diseases of the old world killed more people than the soldiers. If you also want to read a good historical book, pick up 1776 by David McCullough (spelling may be off). As was stated though, many statesmen lost everything they had fighting the British, and they deserve our remembrance with gratitude, not cynicism and belittlement.
The "old dead white guys" always get credit for being terrible. Slavery and many of their acts were horrible, but when I look at many African American professional athletes, Oprah, Clarence Thomas, and may other great African Americans I have to ask, If Abraham Lincoln had sent the slaves back to Africa, would these accomplished people have ever have existed? Yet, they don't teach that fact in school, they teach that "old Abe" was going to free the slaves, therefore the whole truth is left out. Truth be told, there would be more African Americans still in Africa which has the most natural resources for its land area than any other continent and yet, most of it is still living in the third world. Then again, lets blame the white men. I mean the fact that the tribal leaders of Africa sold their own people into Slavery is left out in schools, and not completely examined in Howard Zinn's book.
The whole point is that history is written by the winners. There is no place in history where everything was without corruption. People are flawed and when history is written about something, the flaws may or may not be seen based on what the writer wants you to know. It took me till college to actually start critically reading textbooks and other commentaries. Prior to that I only knew the lies I was taught in school.

[leadduck]

Your argument is fair, but to broadly discount an entire book of first-hand accounts is to much of a blanket statement for my comfort level.

Sorry, I didn't mean to disregard the entire book. Not having read it, I'm not qualified to do that, nor can I think of any book I've read with which I totally agree or disagree. I was simply pointing out that because a report is madeby one who witnessed it, does not guarantee it's accuracy.

[leadduck]

The whole point is that history is written by the winners. There is no place in history where everything was without corruption. People are flawed and when history is written about something, the flaws may or may not be seen based on what the writer wants you to know. It took me till college to actually start critically reading textbooks and other commentaries. Prior to that I only knew the lies I was taught in school.

This whole thread reminds me of Dylan's, "With God On Our Side" (which I was lucky enough to hear him perform recently). Revisionists will always be slanting history in the direction of their individual or collective beliefs. As the narrator states at the beginning of Braveheart, "...history is written by those who hang heroes."

[Oglethorpe]

As was stated though, many statesmen lost everything they had fighting the British, and they deserve our remembrance with gratitude, not cynicism and belittlement.

Again, this is not meant to be a belittlement of the forefathers, just a coming out party for the facts that were kept from us as kids. I find it particularly insulting that somebody else got to pick and choose what I was supposed to learn. It's like a well known chef doing his own restaurant review.

The "old dead white guys" always get credit for being terrible.

Not arguing for the sake of arguing, but I don't agree with this. I think more often than not people like Jefferson and Washington (to use the previous two examples) have their praises sung than they are cut down for their more despicable acts. I know times are different now, but Jefferson wouldn't have ever had a chance to do what he did 200 years ago, judging by his track record. Look at all the shit Bill Clinton got for getting it on with an intern. Jefferson had a ton of slaves and several illegitimate children by them.

Slavery and many of their acts were horrible, but when I look at many African American professional athletes, Oprah, Clarence Thomas, and may other great African Americans I have to ask, If Abraham Lincoln had sent the slaves back to Africa, would these accomplished people have ever have existed? Yet, they don't teach that fact in school, they teach that "old Abe" was going to free the slaves, therefore the whole truth is left out. Truth be told, there would be more African Americans still in Africa which has the most natural resources for its land area than any other continent and yet, most of it is still living in the third world. Then again, lets blame the white men. I mean the fact that the tribal leaders of Africa sold their own people into Slavery is left out in schools, and not completely examined in Howard Zinn's book.

This sounds like a post-facto backwards rationalization/justification for slavery. You should 100% blame white men for these atrocities, regardless of what happened downstream. The fact that Africa had its own problems prior to the Europeans/Americans taking them is neither here nor there. Africa now still has a ton of the same problems it did then. If anything, the white man should have helped them, not taken them into bondage.

The whole point is that history is written by the winners. There is no place in history where everything was without corruption. People are flawed and when history is written about something, the flaws may or may not be seen based on what the writer wants you to know. It took me till college to actually start critically reading textbooks and other commentaries. Prior to that I only knew the lies I was taught in school.

The premise of the Zinn's book was to show history precisely as the opposite of "as told by the winners". This history is told by the losers. The ones that got the shitty end of the stick. It's really the entire purpose of the thread. That's the history we don't get.