That is unfortunately true, and for every serious historical scholar like John Keegan there are a hundred hacks like Glenn Beck.
How factual is history..
- Thread starter ironsides
- Start date
That's not fair, that's comparing a informative scholar, to a propaganda clown.
Keegan's interest is in passing on information to the masses. Beck's interest is in entraining a specific demographic.
What do you want to know?
You're a raving idealist.
Real history scholars are shunned by the main stream academics who depend on corporate coin to rewrite history wherever it needs to reflect the present in the interest of monetary profit rather than education or historical accuracy. A case in point would be Dr Goldstones midstream revision under brutal tribal shunning. In fact real events are rewriten hour to hour as necessary, for the express purpose of obscuring truer histories. Todays information requirments are far more likely to be unhistories by design especially since we are firmly in the terminal phase of imperial decay. We won't know what happened for at least a century and only then if the good guys win.
Last edited:
From you, nothing. Your judgments have no relationship to reality on most things I've seen you write about here, and when pushed a bit you just get flippant and dismissive and start name calling.
It depends on who wrote it. Another way of looking at it is, when you are older how do you
remember it? I am now near the age of saying to grand kids, when I was a boy I walked to
school four miles each way uphill and so on. I remember it but it doesn't have much to do
with fact does it? History is the past, and what you remember and how you remember has
nothing to do with the facts.
remember it? I am now near the age of saying to grand kids, when I was a boy I walked to
school four miles each way uphill and so on. I remember it but it doesn't have much to do
with fact does it? History is the past, and what you remember and how you remember has
nothing to do with the facts.
and, of course, the above is a completely factual representation of what truely happened and is NOT from a hack with an agenda.
Could be.
The onus is on you to do your own research, prove me right or wrong or don't do anything at all. That depends on whether you are genuinely interested and willing to expend the energy.
I already did my research. But I'm genuinely interested.
That was the point.
Sorry, I've done my research and I agree with the story that the Iroquois, or Haudenosaunee, were savage expansionists. They fought with their neighbors continually. Sometimes they won (Huron), sometimes they lost (Micmaq).
But in other accounts, predominantly Wendat and Ojibwa, the Haudenosaunee were pushed out of Southern Ontario, by 1764. Yet there are accounts of the Haudenosaunee here at that time.
All Nations were continuously volleying for territory. That's how it was. Especially when the Europeans added the fur trade. The haudenosaunee were more or less 'savage', then any other Nation.
The oral tradition of the Jews probably is just as flawed as is all other languages that had no written language. The oldest written languages came from the Sumerians and Chinese.
Were they that flawed? Most oral traditions of indigenous peoples are now accepted as being as valid as any written language according to ethnographers and anthropologists. My point is that if this god cared about its creation, why would it have given the word or law to just one desert tribe in the middle east? If this god is just and loving, then it would have given the word to all peoples, in all geographical locations throughout all historical time frames, making all spiritual teachings equal in validity. This would also invalidate the childish "my religion is better than your religion" silliness. Having a written language does not make anybody smarter or more advanced than those without one.
Got to agree with Bar here. Slavery was very much the cause of the US Civil War. After the Civil War and somewhat during the Civil War the South tried to say it was simply because of State's Rights. Writings both North and South speak to the contrary prior to the war.
A Marine pal of mine is an African-American cop in Virginia. Some white cops were discussing the Civil War and said it was about States Rights. My buddy said...
"Yeah... the right to own F*ing slaves."
He was never one to tip toe around people.
Looks like this God you refer to did just that, similar religions seemed to have started all over the world in a fairly close time period to each other. As for the written language, it seemed to have accelerated the development of people who had it over those who didn't. (for one, it increased the speed of communication and ideas)
I've never met a Marine that was, lol.
You would be the most diplomatic one I've ever conversed with. Which is why I asked you if you a commissioned officer, lol.