Opinion History is written by the victors, is this true?

Huh? I think like you're conflating a lot of things. Which postmodernist philosopher thought that everyone needed to get a ribbon? That's an American pedagogic ideal, not something I've seen discussed by actual postmodernist.

I mean there's a lot of criticism to be had of postmodernism and I'm not a fan at all, but your post is mostly conjecture and your feelings about modern liberals, ironically.
Post-modernism is the express lane to Retardville bud. If you're having trouble connecting the dots to the asinine ideals and behaviour of today I can't help you much further.

Have you read any Foucault? Derrida? Lyotard?
 
WHY?

because you don't like it? Try using facts not emotion
Those statues were put up to glorify the people depicted, not to teach the public about their actions or the historical context. If you put a statue in a public place it gets a different meaning than if you put it in a museum. You could place a giant bust of Adolf Hitler (to pick a cheap and fictional example) in a museum and with the proper context/explanation it would have value, unlike placing it on a plaza in the center of Berlin.
 
Post-modernism is the express lane to Retardville bud. If you're having trouble connecting the dots to the asinine ideals and behaviour of today I can't help you much further.

Have you read any Foucault? Derrida? Lyotard?
Have you? When did Foucault talk about giving ribbons to everyone and that the "analytical model" is too difficult? I mean, he was a pedophile and I despise him but it seems like "postmodernism" is the new "communism".
 
Have you? When did Foucault talk about giving ribbons to everyone and that the "analytical model" is too difficult? I mean, he was a pedophile and I despise him but it seems like "postmodernism" is the new "communism".

I've read multiple books from all three, multiple times. You're missing the point.

He didn't need to say the analytical philosophy was too difficult - the entire premise of post-modernism is a complete rebuking of analytical philosophy. That question alone tells me you're knowledge of it is slim.

Just because those tools didn't speak to my points directly does not mean that people using post-modernist application in logic don't arrive at the problems we see today. WTF does one have to do with the other? These things evolve and take on a life of their own, especially when people aren't even asking themselves why they believe something.....
 
What will the history books will say about Donald Trump?

He's a traitor that worked for Putin. He killed hundreds of thousands of his own citizens with covid. He ordered a violent insurrection after losing election.

Anything or anyone that says otherwise will simply be banned.


I still can't get how much Russiagate came from Mi6 British foreign intelligence. Should we be trusting dossiers from foreign intelligence aggencies?
 
No nation or peoples willingly paint themselves as the villain. In fact, the more questionable the action the more justification is usually created to explain the actions taken. Victors will always describe their actions in a favorable light just as losers will seek justifications for their losses and the actions of the victors. Time can bring societal reflection on past actions but that too is influenced by the ideologies of those looking on the past.

A great example is the European incursion into Southern and Northern America. Spain wanted new resources. They justified their actions in part with bringing Christianity to the heathen and the general level of barbarity they ascribed to the natives in contrast to their own society. This resulted in genocidal actions toward the native societies, slavery, etc. With this view its easy to paint European colonization and exploitation efforts in a a deservedly negative light. However, if you also compare it against the actions of the dominate native societies they encountered and conquered you see a similar history of genocidal actions toward their neighbors, slavery and resource avarice.

In some ways, Spain could be said to have treated these native societies no different than Europeans nation had been treating each other for centuries with their various histories of wars and jockeying for political power and resource acquisition. You can also say the Aztec empire behaved in much the same manner to their own neighbors prior to the Europeans.

Does that excuse the behavior of the Spanish or the Aztecs? No, not when viewed through 21st century eyes and ideologies but within the context of their own time, experience and view of history it was practically another day in the office.
 
Last edited:
What do you think we have been taught as being true, that maybe isn't?

In the woke West these days, it seems many schools are lying to our children more and more about some things from the past.
Many things from the very recent past do not even seem to be acknowledged, lying by omission.
Our society is changing drastically. Things that i thought were set in concrete are being destroyed in front of my eyes.
Our governments are giving the ok for school curriculums to teach lies to our kids. The children will grow up totally believing in what they've been taught because most kids trust teachers and schools, and so do the parents.

It's made me wonder whether i was lied to during my school days? Whether schools taught lies to my mum and dad when they were youngsters?
How do we know what is true or not?

ISIS used to blow up ancient statues and monuments, evidence of previous civilizations that existed prior to Islam. Over the very recent past in the West we've seen people pulling down statues and other things, destroying history.

Many people giving interviews and public talks regarding 'The Great Reset,' talk about how the history of the 'old' world will need to be erased for the new year zero. And that future generations will be taught nothing about the history that we are all familiar with.

I wonder which 'truths' are in fact lies?
What have we not been taught?[we'll never know.]

What's being lied about from the past in school curriculums?
 
Usually the winning side controls the propaganda arm of the government. I’m buying this.
 
Reading between the lines you sound like another guy who's upset because schools don't teach the "good" sides to slavery.


It's like the guy heard the line from Archer where they're talking about slaves and Archer quips "I fail to see the problem, free labor" and didn't realize it was a really cruel joke.
 
Theres a really good Adam Curtis documentary about how those in power have tried to manipulate the historical narrative to suit a particular agenda. Well worth a watch if you have an interest in history. For anyone with access to BBC iplayer, all of his stuff is on there.

 
A few things that come to mind:

A) Black people used to rule Europe

B) Most African Americans are actually Native Americans

C) It was not uncommon for black people to own slaves and for whites to be slaves in early America

D) Slavery was employment

This is all made up, the only part that is remotely true is that some blacks owned slaves in America.
 
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomlin...didnt-america-invent-slavery/?sh=3c09dfdb7ef6

If you think the title’s question is silly, you’re right. But here’s the problem: Increasing numbers of college students today would unhesitatingly respond, “Hell, yes!” to the query. Could it be because that is what they are being taught?

I first learned of this misconception about slavery about three years ago, when a professor published the results of 11 years of his quizzing his students at the start of each year on what they knew about American history and Western civilization.

By far the most shocking result to emerge from his years of polling is this: Students overwhelmingly believe that slavery “was an American problem . . . and they are very fuzzy about the history of slavery prior to the Colonial era. Their entire education about slavery was confined to America.”

Supporting this deceptive—because incomplete—“history” of slavery comes The New York Times, whose “1619 Project” advertises that it now “aims to reframe the country’s history, understanding 1619 as our true founding.” Why 1619? Because, says the Times, that is the date of the arrival of the first slaves to the land that would a century-and-a-half later be called the United States. Because America’s “true founding” arose out of slavery, this institution is the key to understanding America’s uniqueness as a country and culture.

Of course, it is important to study the history of slavery in this country. But what if America was not unique in holding slaves? What if America didn’t invent slavery, as our students have come to think? In our “Just Google It” era, the answers to these questions, though apparently not provided by some universities, are easily found on the website, FreeTheSlaves.net. Reading it should be your first step toward learning the full facts about slavery worldwide.

In perusing the FreeTheSlaves website, the first fact that emerges is it was nearly 9,000 years ago that slavery first appeared, in Mesopotamia (6800 B.C.). Enemies captured in war were commonly kept by the conquering country as slaves.

And in the 1700s B.C., the Egyptian pharaohs enslaved the Israelites, as is discussed in Exodus Chapter 21. Later, the pagan Greeks participated in slavery, for ancient Sparta as well as Athens relied fully on the slave labor of captives.

But Greek slavery paled in comparison to that in ancient Rome. According to historian Mark Cartwright, “slavery was an ever-present feature of the Roman world,” in which “as many as one in three of the population in Italy or one in five across the empire were slaves, and upon this foundation of forced labor was built the entire edifice of the Roman state and society.”

By the 8th century A.D., African slaves were being sold to Arab households in a Muslim world that, at the time, spanned from Spain to Persia.

By the year 1000 A.D., slavery had become common in England’s rural, agricultural economy, with the poor yoking themselves to their landowners through a form of debt bondage. At about the same time, the number of slaves captured in Germany grew so large that their nationality became the generic term for “slaves”—Slavs.

As for the Atlantic slave trade, this began in 1444 A.D., when Portuguese traders brought the first large number of slaves from Africa to Europe. Eighty-two years later (1526), Spanish explorers brought the first African slaves to settlements in what would become the United States—a fact the Times gets wrong. The Times likewise fails to mention that the Native American Cherokee Nation also held African slaves, and even sided with the Confederacy during the Civil War.

But the antipathy of many Americans toward slavery became evident as early as 1775, when Quakers in Pennsylvania set up the first abolitionist society.

(Betsy Ross, whose American flag was deemed politically incorrect recently by Nike, was herself both a Quaker and an abolitionist.)

Five years later, Massachusetts became the first state to abolish slavery in its constitution. Seven years after that (1787) the U.S. Congress passed the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, outlawing slavery in the Northwest Territories.

In 1803, Denmark-Norway became the first country in Europe to ban the African slave trade. In 1807, “three weeks before Britain abolished the Atlantic slave trade, President Jefferson signed a law prohibiting ‘the importation of slaves into any port or place within the jurisdiction of the United States.’” Jefferson’s actions followed Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution.

In 1820, Spain abolished the slave trade south of the Equator, but preserved it in Cuba until 1888.

In 1834, the Abolition Act abolished slavery throughout the British Empire, including British colonies in North America. In 1847, France would abolish slavery in all its colonies. Brazil followed in 1850.

Closer to home, in 1863 President Abraham Lincoln issued The Emancipation Proclamation, freeing all U.S. slaves in states that had seceded from the Union, except those in Confederate areas already controlled by the Union army. This was followed in 1865 by the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, outlawing slavery.

The 20th century would see emancipation come to Sierra Leone, Saudi Arabia, India, and Yemen. In 1964, the sixth World Muslim Congress, the world’s oldest Muslim organization, pledged global support for all anti-slavery movements. In 1990, after its adoption by 54 countries in the 1980s, the 19th Conference of Foreign Ministers of the Organization of the Islamic Conference formally adopted the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, which states that “human beings are born free, and no one has the right to enslave, humiliate, oppress, or exploit them.”

The last country to abolish slavery was Mauritania (1981).

But the 20th century would also witness the German Nazis’ use of slave labor in industry. Up to nine million people, mostly Jews, were forced to work to absolute exhaustion—and sent to concentration camps. In 1954, China began allowing prisoners to be used for labor in the laogai prison camps. In 1989, the National Islamic Front took over the government of Sudan and then armed new militias to raid villages, capturing and enslaving inhabitants.

Sadly, the 21st century has not rid itself of slavery. In fact, in 2017, a research consortium including the U.N. International Labor Organization, the group “Walk Free,” and the U.N. International Organization for Migration release a combined global study indicating that 40 million people are trapped in modern forms of slavery worldwide.

Even this thumbnail sketch of the history of slavery is enough to rebut The New York Times’ “1619 Project.” No, slavery was not primarily an American phenomenon; it has existed worldwide. And, no, America didn’t invent slavery; that happened more than 9,000 years ago. Finally, slavery did not end in the world with the passage of the 13th Amendment; there are 40 million people enslaved even today.

The historical facts rehearsed above are so easily accessed that one cannot but wonder why the Times and too many professors seek now to persuade us that a nation “dedicated to the proposition that ‘all men are created equal’” is in fact defined, not by its world-transforming aspiration for human equality, but by slavery—the destruction of which required the Civil War, the bloodiest conflict in American history.

Far from ignoring or minimizing the history of slavery in the United States, presenting the full facts about the history of slavery worldwide is requisite to understanding American slavery—as well as our successful efforts to end it.

But if we allow ourselves to be persuaded that not only our past—but our “national DNA”—is ruinously soiled by a sin for which there is no atoning, how can we expect our misinformed citizens to possess the confidence in their own principles that is required to defend individual liberty and limited government? How can we expect them not to embrace the false, fatal promises of utopian regimes?

Our badly educated students—through no fault of their own—appear well on their way to consummating this fatal embrace.
 
The human diet...

How are we the only species in this world that is confused about what we should eat/is our natural diet? I believe it's us and the pandas.

You got thousands of different diets and people swear that is our natural diet and what/how we are supposed to eat.
 
The human diet...

How are we the only species in this world that is confused about what we should eat/is our natural diet? I believe it's us and the pandas.

You got thousands of different diets and people swear that is our natural diet and what/how we are supposed to eat.
tenor.gif
 
book burning ceremonies, during the ancient times especially kinda leave me feeling down.
 
There is no truth, only perspective...
 
Not understanding history is a sure fire way to create swaths of virtue-signalling morons with no framework for their understanding of modern civilization.

This is why even today, an era of incomparable life expectancy and comfort, these idiots believe the minor injustices of today are even worth mentioning.

Study post-modernist philosophy. It's used as a cop out for the lazy person to rationalize their mental and physical short comings. Feelings over facts. This lazy attitude has been permeating schools and emboldening the apathetic for the last 60 years. The analytical models are too difficult, they say. Causes too much exclusion and feelings of inadequacy. Best to go lowest common denominator to make sure everybody gets a ribbon!

These are, ironically, the first people to shriek about injustices and equality while simultaneously not understanding that their half-cocked opinions stem from nihilism and a blatant disregard for purpose to begin with.

Imagine not fundamentally caring about your own existence but then virtue signalling about your perceived oppression. Just embarrassing....

You sound like Jordan Peterson you Nazi
 
Buy some old out of date history books and encyclopedias at garage sales, online, or at goodwill.
There are good free pdfs and book collections online as well such as project gutenberg.
Stay away from online resources like wikipedia which can be changed and updated by anybody .
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,049
Messages
55,463,632
Members
174,786
Latest member
JoyceOuthw
Back
Top