Textbook HISTORY: How Accurate Is It?

[JD Spydo]

In the past 15 years or so I've become somewhat of a "History Buff">> or I think it's fair to say that I'm becoming a truth seeker. It started back around 2004 when I first became intrigued with the "History Channel" on cable TV. Until then I pretty much believed that most of the textbook history we learned in school from grade 1 all the way through high school was fairly accurate. But I don't believe that to be the case anymore.

First off I'm convinced that it's been well proven that a few other explorers discovered this North American continent way before Christopher Columbus. But yet we have a government holiday celebrating this guy's life>> in spite of the fact that many dark revelations about him have come forth in the past few years. But that's just one of many examples I've been conflicted with.

It was said by a well known statesman once that "The Victors of Wars Are Usually The People That Write Most Of Our Textbook History". I'm very much beginning to believe that is indeed the case most of the time. Not to mention the coverup of all the archeological discoveries here in the USA that have been covered up when it doesn't agree with the mainstream narrative of recorded history. But there are so many examples of that I wouldn't know a good place to start. But I'm willing to listen to both sides of the debate. But what say you all?

[Ankerson]

It actually is pretty accurate.

The issues come in when people want to believe what they want to believe.

Anything that counters that is a problem.

There is only so much time to cover things in school so it's more of a broad overview than a focused one.

Remember opinions are not facts, and never have been.

[The Meat man]

Without getting too deeply involved in this, I'll just say that the modern attempt to smear and degrade the character and achievments of Christopher Columbus disgusts me. He was without a doubt one of the greatest men who ever lived, and it was through him that Western Civilization was brought to the Americas. He was not perfect, he was a man of his time, but neither was he the genocidal tyrant that many small-minded narcissistic people think he was.

[Ankerson]

Without getting too deeply involved in this, I'll just say that the modern attempt to smear and degrade the character and achievments of Christopher Columbus disgusts me. He was without a doubt one of the greatest men who ever lived, and it was through him that Western Civilization was brought to the Americas. He was not perfect, he was a man of his time, but neither was he the genocidal tyrant that many small-minded narcissistic people think he was.

Exactly, CC wasn't even in what would be the US for very long from the records I saw.

So what he did after isn't relevant to him discovering America.

[The Deacon]

In general, history is written by the winners, so it's likely there has almost always been some bias toward the winner's "side" of the story.

[Doc Dan]

There was a US history called A People's History of America that should have been called A Comrade's History of America. It was a bestseller, but it was a history rewritten from the Communist Marxist viewpoint. It was total fiction. A book called A Patriot's History of the United States is pretty good. It was an answer to the Marxist propaganda book. Columbus is pictured in a positive manner, and so are others, though it also shows warts when there are some.

[ChrisinHove]

I think all history is written from the perspective of the authors.

Eyewitness accounts - the raw material for the historian - can be scant, contradictory or self-justifying, necessitating interpretation.

Histories also tend to be written with their audience in mind, or at least mindful of contemporary sensibilities. The most dangerous history books are those with a “message”, I think, as you can be reasonably sure anything that doesn’t support it gets omitted or downplayed.

What a lot of the better history authors seem to do now is revisit the raw data, the first hand accounts etc AND all the other histories.

The last thing you should do is accept any single history book as definitive, at least without reading around the whole topic for yourself.

[TkoK83Spy]

When I was a kid Pluto was considered one of the planets, I heard it no longer qualifies?? After that, I lost hope in everything I learned in school. Bunch of liars I tell ya

[JD Spydo]

It actually is pretty accurate.

The issues come in when people want to believe what they want to believe.

Anything that counters that is a problem.

There is only so much time to cover things in school so it's more of a broad overview than a focused one.

Remember opinions are not facts, and never have been.

Well coming from you Ankerson I can believe it more to a degree. Because you've proven your credibility to me on more than one occasion. But with that said I still think that there must be something to the official narrative being altered at times. Because for many years the mainstream media wanted to deny (or cover up) the fact that many of the high level Nazis who did make it to South America ( Mostly Argentina & Brazil). Because with Josef Mengele ( one of the worst of all Nazis) living all the way up to 1978 it doesn't appear to me like they were looking for him all that hard??? Or some of those war criminals either changed their identity or paid their way in gold or other types of money.

But that's just one segment of history in question.

Also lately it appears like there is a lot of new revelations regarding the USA Civil War of the 1800s. But to be fair all of that seems to change constantly.

And the fact that schools are limited in their depth of discussion is truly a valid point as well. But I still think that money and position can tend to corrupt things. Maybe the USA history is more accurate because there are a lot of checks and balances in the education system that doesn't exist in many other parts of the planet.

[JD Spydo]

When I was a kid Pluto was considered one of the planets, I heard it no longer qualifies?? After that, I lost hope in everything I learned in school. Bunch of liars I tell ya

Yeah I was taught that same thing. And the Science teacher I had in the 7th grade was like a rock star among us kids. He was well respected and seemed to be one of the smartest teachers I ever had in high school or college. He also knew a lot about comets, asteroids and other aspects of outer space like the Van Allen Radiation Belts that were not discussed much back in those days.

Even though I do respect what Ankerson said I still maintain that no one really knows for sure who actually should be credited for discovering the North American continent. But on the other hand the history of our Presidents here in the USA is probably very accurate.

[JD Spydo]

There was a US history called A People's History of America that should have been called A Comrade's History of America. It was a bestseller, but it was a history rewritten from the Communist Marxist viewpoint. It was total fiction. A book called A Patriot's History of the United States is pretty good. It was an answer to the Marxist propaganda book. Columbus is pictured in a positive manner, and so are others, though it also shows warts when there are some.

You raise a good point Doc Dan>> because the source of information is always very important to consider.

And for Columbus to be put into a positive light is more than a "stretch" in my opinion. Serious history buffs just know better than that. Because I'm convinced that explorer Leif Erickson did indeed find the North American continent long before Columbus ever set sail.

[James Y]

I think all history is written from the perspective of the authors.

Eyewitness accounts - the raw material for the historian - can be scant, contradictory or self-justifying, necessitating interpretation.

Histories also tend to be written with their audience in mind, or at least mindful of contemporary sensibilities. The most dangerous history books are those with a “message”, I think, as you can be reasonably sure anything that doesn’t support it gets omitted or downplayed.

What a lot of the better history authors seem to do now is revisit the raw data, the first hand accounts etc AND all the other histories.

The last thing you should do is accept any single history book as definitive, at least without reading around the whole topic for yourself.

I very much agree with you!

Jim

[The Deacon]

And for Columbus to be put into a positive light is more than a "stretch" in my opinion. Serious history buffs just know better than that. Because I'm convinced that explorer Leif Erickson did indeed find the North American continent long before Columbus ever set sail.

If a tree falls in the forest, and nobody hears it, did it make a noise? Erickson, and other Scandinavians may very well have visited the east coast of North America long before Columbus and Asians may very well have done the same on the west coast. But, if they did, their discoveries were not acted upon by their peers. Perhaps saying that Columbus "discovered" America is a bit of an exaggeration, but his voyage was definitely the first that lead to further exploration and colonization.

[Naperville]

Open Syllabus. Every university's books. The list of lists.

https://opensyllabus.org/

[yablanowitz]

Histories are written after the events, generally by people other than the participants. They are reconstructions at best, fabrications at worst and only as trustworthy as the author, who may be more interested in making a buck than preserving facts. And that's not even venturing into political waters, where things get really murky in a hurry.

[Naperville]

...
But on the other hand the history of our Presidents here in the USA is probably very accurate.

After 5 years of #FakeNews stories about Russia Russia, Russia, and the main stream media driving that propaganda to the 4 corners of the Earth, I doubt very much that the history of anything is true.

[Water Bug]

Actually, as my father always said, when you go to school from kindergarten through high school, you are learning the basics of reading, writing, arithmetic... you are learning to learn... you are learning to listen... you are learning to understand... you are learning to think... and all of this is in preparation of dealing with the real world, especially when you go to college.

I believe my teachers from elementary to high school provided me with the basics and were preparing me for a vocation and/or college... they weren't trying to force an idea or belief upon me as you sometimes see happening today. My teachers gave me the tools to decide the path I wanted to take, and once I chose my path, I was prepared to learn a trade or profession, listen to the professors, and decide for myself what is right and wrong. I learned the history taught to me in grade school and high school, and if something in college conflicted with that, I had the self-know how and confidence to check it out for myself and determine for myself what is right and wrong.

At least my old history teachers did me a great favor in keeping it simple, by the book, without introducing their personal beliefs, and for that I thank them. We need more of that these days.

To this day I believe either Christopher Columbus or Eric the Red were the first to visit and discover this country and I am fine with that. I also believe Pluto is STILL one of the nine planets of our solar system. Just because people today say it isn't so and that the heroes of the past are now criminals doesn't make it the gospel. You're suppose to learn from history and move on, and if you feel a mistake was made, don't repeat that mistake. Changing history or science to suit one's needs isn't going to fix anything.

[Ankerson]

Actually, as my father always said, when you go to school from kindergarten through high school, you are learning the basics of reading, writing, arithmetic... you are learning to learn... you are learning to listen... you are learning to understand... you are learning to think... and all of this is in preparation of dealing with the real world, especially when you go to college.

I believe my teachers from elementary to high school provided me with the basics and were preparing me for a vocation and/or college... they weren't trying to force an idea or belief upon me as you sometimes see happening today. My teachers gave me the tools to decide the path I wanted to take, and once I chose my path, I was prepared to learn a trade or profession, listen to the professors, and decide for myself what is right and wrong. I learned the history taught to me in grade school and high school, and if something in college conflicted with that, I had the self-know how and confidence to check it out for myself and determine for myself what is right and wrong.

At least my old history teachers did me a great favor in keeping it simple, by the book, without introducing their personal beliefs, and for that I thank them. We need more of that these days.

To this day I believe either Christopher Columbus or Eric the Red were the first to visit and discover this country and I am fine with that. I also believe Pluto is STILL one of the nine planets of our solar system. Just because people today say it isn't so and that the heroes of the past are now criminals doesn't make it the gospel. You're suppose to learn from history and move on, and if you feel a mistake was made, don't repeat that mistake. Changing history or science to suit one's needs isn't going to fix anything.

Yes, one can't change history, the facts of what really happened or happened period will always be there. Once something happened it happened, there is no changing that fact.

That can never be undone.

But remembering the mistakes of past history can indeed help not to repeat them.

[Ankerson]

I think all history is written from the perspective of the authors.

Eyewitness accounts - the raw material for the historian - can be scant, contradictory or self-justifying, necessitating interpretation.

Histories also tend to be written with their audience in mind, or at least mindful of contemporary sensibilities. The most dangerous history books are those with a “message”, I think, as you can be reasonably sure anything that doesn’t support it gets omitted or downplayed.

What a lot of the better history authors seem to do now is revisit the raw data, the first hand accounts etc AND all the other histories.

The last thing you should do is accept any single history book as definitive, at least without reading around the whole topic for yourself.

Yes, 100%.

That can be a problem.

Unless they stick with the raw facts and stay neutral and away from opinions.

[The Mastiff]

You should always look at history books warily. History, science and medicine have all been corrupted fairly regularly for political purposes. There is always going to be someone/group trying to twist things for their own benefit. I think it happens more openly now because there are really no repercussions to those doing it. People just seem to not care now and won't begin to care until their online activities are interrupted. If they can log online everything is OK. Most seem to not care about history or even that someone is blatantly changing it for their own benefit . Then there are others that care about everything passionately and look for stuff to take offense at. They care deeply about someone not using correct pronouns but don't care about their country.