- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
We all know history is written by the victors
Posted on 2/12/15 at 7:12 pm
Posted on 2/12/15 at 7:12 pm
But how much of what we learn in school is romantisized/biased towards the people in charge at the time?
Certainly ancient history is almost totally reorganized by the victors to make them look like the good guys, which is one reason why people love Ancient Rome so much.
So how much is cold hard truth and how much is hindsight and dolled up to make winners look like heroes/the good guys?
Certainly ancient history is almost totally reorganized by the victors to make them look like the good guys, which is one reason why people love Ancient Rome so much.
So how much is cold hard truth and how much is hindsight and dolled up to make winners look like heroes/the good guys?
11
Posted on 2/12/15 at 7:12 pm to Tiger1242
Is this another holocaust thread?
Posted on 2/12/15 at 7:16 pm to Tiger1242
The soviet union was actually a great place. Don't let the propagandists fool you......
Posted on 2/12/15 at 7:17 pm to Tiger1242
People romanticize Rome?
I never got that impression. Greece maybe, but not Rome.
Now, they give Rome credit for their achievements which, holy hell, are fricking amazing by any standard, but I don't think anyone looks at Rome and says, "Now that was a egalitarian society free of corruption and sin."
Because it certainly wasn't. In fact, I would say Rome's warts get more attention than it's good parts. Most of the time, the only positive things people have to say about Rome involve its military.
I never got that impression. Greece maybe, but not Rome.
Now, they give Rome credit for their achievements which, holy hell, are fricking amazing by any standard, but I don't think anyone looks at Rome and says, "Now that was a egalitarian society free of corruption and sin."
Because it certainly wasn't. In fact, I would say Rome's warts get more attention than it's good parts. Most of the time, the only positive things people have to say about Rome involve its military.
Posted on 2/12/15 at 7:19 pm to Tiger1242
quote:
But how much of what we learn in school is romantisized/biased towards the people in charge at the time?
Have you ever heard the different viewpoints of the Civil War?
Posted on 2/12/15 at 7:22 pm to theGarnetWay
Posted on 2/12/15 at 7:24 pm to Tiger1242
The US was founded and became prosperous based on the mass murder of Native Americans and theft of their land.
In rewriting its own history about Thanksgiving, white America tells a Disney-like fairytale about the English pilgrims and their struggle to survive in a new and harsh environment. The pilgrims found help from the friendly and extremely generous Native-American tribe, the Wampanoag Indians, in 1621. Unfortunately for Native Americans, the European settlers’ gratitude was short-lived. By 1637, Massachusetts governor John Winthrop ordered the massacre of thousands of Pequot Indian men, women and children. This event marked the start of a Native-American genocide that would take slightly more than 200 years to complete, and of course to achieve its ultimate goal, which was to take the land from Native Americans and systematically plunder their resources. The genocide begun in 1637 marks the beginning of the conquest of the entire continent until most Native Americans were exterminated, a few were assimilated into white society, and the rest were put in reservations to dwindle and die.
In rewriting its own history about Thanksgiving, white America tells a Disney-like fairytale about the English pilgrims and their struggle to survive in a new and harsh environment. The pilgrims found help from the friendly and extremely generous Native-American tribe, the Wampanoag Indians, in 1621. Unfortunately for Native Americans, the European settlers’ gratitude was short-lived. By 1637, Massachusetts governor John Winthrop ordered the massacre of thousands of Pequot Indian men, women and children. This event marked the start of a Native-American genocide that would take slightly more than 200 years to complete, and of course to achieve its ultimate goal, which was to take the land from Native Americans and systematically plunder their resources. The genocide begun in 1637 marks the beginning of the conquest of the entire continent until most Native Americans were exterminated, a few were assimilated into white society, and the rest were put in reservations to dwindle and die.
This post was edited on 2/12/15 at 7:25 pm
Posted on 2/12/15 at 7:26 pm to Tiger1242
quote:A majority is dolled up and romanticized or made more dramatic.
So how much is cold hard truth and how much is hindsight and dolled up to make winners look like heroes/the good guys?
On top of that, you hear only the peak exciting moments in school, especially high school.
True history is largely boring just like the multitude of modern day occurrences.
Posted on 2/12/15 at 7:34 pm to HoustonGumbeauxGuy
Well, if we are talking about romanticized history, American Indians are one of the most romanticized cultures on the planet.
That whole noble savage bullshite is hilarious and a relatively recent development caused by a strong reaction to the Wounded Knee massacre.
That whole noble savage bullshite is hilarious and a relatively recent development caused by a strong reaction to the Wounded Knee massacre.
Posted on 2/12/15 at 7:35 pm to Scruffy
quote:
True history is largely boring
I disagree hole heartedly. I think it's facinating learning how things came to be
Posted on 2/12/15 at 7:44 pm to PurpleandGold Motown
Yea but we still systematically destroyed their homes, families, and way of life
Posted on 2/12/15 at 7:53 pm to Tiger1242
quote:
Yea but we still systematically destroyed their homes, families, and way of life
And?
You think revising history to portray American Indians as inherently noble makes up for it?
Posted on 2/12/15 at 7:54 pm to PurpleandGold Motown
No I'm saying just let them have this one
Posted on 2/12/15 at 7:59 pm to Tiger1242
It is really interesting to read about the American Revolution in some British texts. I read one while studying history in college. The British text summed it up with saying that the Revolutionist (who were ungrateful for what Britain was doing for them) simply got lucky because Britain really didn't care about the war and were focused more on France.
Posted on 2/12/15 at 8:06 pm to Tiger1242
Oh my Great Grandmother was full-blooded Creek. I grew up on those old stories from her and my grandfather. I know my history both what's written down and oral tales -- though we were Lower Creeks, so not so many traditional tales were passed down. Lower Creeks assimilated prior to the Civil War.
The history of the Creek Nation is interesting enough without all the fanciful bullshite. I assume the same is true for other nations.
Oh, an I still draw devil horns on Andrew Jackson's face just like Granddad taught me.
ETA: And yes, the lionization of the Founding Fathers is another point where the common perception is pretty far from reality. The closest we get is when someone brings up the fact that Jefferson fricked slaves.
The history of the Creek Nation is interesting enough without all the fanciful bullshite. I assume the same is true for other nations.
Oh, an I still draw devil horns on Andrew Jackson's face just like Granddad taught me.
ETA: And yes, the lionization of the Founding Fathers is another point where the common perception is pretty far from reality. The closest we get is when someone brings up the fact that Jefferson fricked slaves.
This post was edited on 2/12/15 at 8:08 pm
Posted on 2/12/15 at 8:09 pm to PurpleandGold Motown
The Creek were the ones who fought for a little while after the Indian Removal Act right?
Not as hard as the Seminole, but they didn't go as easy as the Commanche and Choctaw
Not as hard as the Seminole, but they didn't go as easy as the Commanche and Choctaw
Posted on 2/12/15 at 8:17 pm to Tiger1242
Well, the Creeks were a divided nation. There were many factions, but in short, yes, they kept fighting.
Treaty was signed in 1832. Many fought for awhile. Then, they went into hiding or walked to Oklahoma, turned around and walked back.
There was still a large population in Alabama during the Civil War. Lower Creeks fought for the Confederacy. Upper Creeks fought for the Union.
Upper Creeks had to sign another treaty giving up even more land, and truly got fricked. Lower Creeks just kept doing what they were doing because they were already farmers and wore western clothes.
Another example of how it doesn't pay to put your faith in the government. The ones that fought came out better.
ETA: This is a gross oversimplification. There were so many treaties, fights and double crosses that it's impossible to really convey how crazy the tribal politics was.
Far from the united front against the white man that we see in the movies
Treaty was signed in 1832. Many fought for awhile. Then, they went into hiding or walked to Oklahoma, turned around and walked back.
There was still a large population in Alabama during the Civil War. Lower Creeks fought for the Confederacy. Upper Creeks fought for the Union.
Upper Creeks had to sign another treaty giving up even more land, and truly got fricked. Lower Creeks just kept doing what they were doing because they were already farmers and wore western clothes.
Another example of how it doesn't pay to put your faith in the government. The ones that fought came out better.
ETA: This is a gross oversimplification. There were so many treaties, fights and double crosses that it's impossible to really convey how crazy the tribal politics was.
Far from the united front against the white man that we see in the movies
This post was edited on 2/12/15 at 8:20 pm
Posted on 2/12/15 at 8:32 pm to Tiger1242
Posted on 2/12/15 at 8:39 pm to Tiger1242
Ronald Reagan was actually a good president.
Posted on 2/12/15 at 9:00 pm to Tiger1242
You have to read a bunch of forbidden books to get a better idea of how things really went! 
Page 1 of 2
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News