Ignorance Of History

[+ Avalon]

I love history!!! I don't know why so many don't. But it seems to be that way with each generation. School children say they don't like history. Alot might have to do with the teachers. What with many of the ignorant teachers I had it's surprising that I do. But it spurred me on!

 

When one hears "Homer" what do many think of? Not the poet but the Simpson!

 

When one hears "Trojan" what do many think of? Not the War but the condom!

 

When I hear "Muhammad Ali" my first thought is of the Egyptian Pasha and not the athlete.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Ali_of_Egypt

[Epigonos]

Avalon I also love history. I was a Latin American History/Spanish major in school. Unlike you I was fortunate to have a wonderful history teacher in high school who instilled in me her love of the subject. My in home library is full of hardback works of history and biographies of historical figures. I am currently reading an outstanding book entitled "Iran: A Modern History" by Abbas Amanat. If the subject interests any reader here I highly recommend it.

Edited August 1, 2018 by Epigonos

[+ Avalon]

Avalon I also love history. I was a Latin American History/Spanish major in school. Unlike you I was fortunate to have a wonderful history teacher in high school who instilled me with her love of the subject. My in home library is full of hardback works of history and biographies of historical figures. I am currently reading an outstanding book entitled "Iran: A Modern History" by Abbas Amanat. If the subject interests any reader here I highly recommend it.

 

Thank-you for the recommendatiom

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbas_Amanat

[+ WilliamM]

I had several excellent history teachers as well, more in Euopean history than American. But, I was a political science major, so especially remember the seminar I took at Penn State on the U.S. presidency.

[gallahadesquire]

For years, I liked math better than history.

STEM all the way. I guess I never had an inspiring history teacher, but I did do well in the subject.

[Smurof]

I love history!!! I don't know why so many don't. But it seems to be that way with each generation. School children say they don't like history. Alot might have to do with the teachers. What with many of the ignorant teachers I had it's surprising that I do. But it spurred me on!

 

When one hears "Homer" what do many think of? Not the poet but the Simpson!

 

When one hears "Trojan" what do many think of? Not the War but the condom!

 

When I hear "Muhammad Ali" my first thought is of the Egyptian Pasha and not the athlete.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Ali_of_Egypt

While the popular FOX show character and the brand name love glove may be more well known, I as most everyone have never heard of "The Other Muhammad Ali". What exactly is boxing, anyway?

[samhexum]

When one hears "Homer" what do many think of? Not the poet but the Simpson!

 

When one hears "Trojan" what do many think of? Not the War but the condom!

 

When I hear "Muhammad Ali" my first thought is of the Egyptian Pasha and not the athlete.

 

 

When I hear "Helen of Troy" I think of a woman from upstate NY.

 

When I hear "Zeus" I think of BDSM videos.

 

When I see "Avalon" I think of Toyota.

[+ WilliamM]

STEM all the way. I guess I never had an inspiring history teacher, but I did do well in the subject.

 

Me also, until I was a junior in college. Luckily, he also taught a two-semester German history course the next year when I was a senior.

 

By accident, we both lived in the same Massachusetts town.

[+ GregM]

History is often written by the winners. I take it all with a grain of salt.

 

Hugs,

Greg

[Rudynate]

I never disliked history, but didn't have great enthusiasm for it. I took some history courses in college that I really enjoyed-modern German history and Soviet history.

[Epigonos]

Greg in reality history is ALWAYS written by the winners – that’s a fact. A corollary to that statement is that might ALWAYS makes right. The truth is that these two facts are more neutral than “good” or “bad” they are simply historical facts.

 

Here are some examples. Consider how the history books would read if Adolph Hitler and Nazi German had won World War II or how the history books would read if Jefferson Davis and the Confederacy had won the U.S. Civil War. Additionally consider how the history books would read if Native Americans had won the Indian Wars in the U.S. or how the history books would read if Mexico had won the Mexican-American War. The outcomes of these conflicts are fact. What we need to do is be thankful for the outcome of the first two and not make excuses to rationalize the behavior of the losers. In the second two examples we need to make an attempt to address the problems created by those victories without attempting to rewrite the entire history of those conflicts.

 

The final fact is that we should take everything we see, hear and read with a grain of salt. Most authors and commentators have a point of view (axe to grind) and we need to be aware of exactly what it is and how it affects the truth of their writings or comments.

[+ GregM]

Greg in reality history is ALWAYS written by the winners – that’s a fact. A corollary to that statement is that might ALWAYS makes right. The truth is that these two facts are more neutral than “good” or “bad” they are simply historical facts.

 

Here are some examples. Consider how the history books would read if Adolph Hitler and Nazi German had won World War II or how the history books would read if Jefferson Davis and the Confederacy had won the U.S. Civil War. Additionally consider how the history books would read if Native Americans had won the Indian Wars in the U.S. or how the history books would read if Mexico had won the Mexican-American War. The outcomes of these conflicts are fact. What we need to do is be thankful for the outcome of the first two and not make excuses to rationalize the behavior of the losers. In the second two examples we need to make an attempt to address the problems created by those victories without attempting to rewrite the entire history of those conflicts.

 

The final fact is that we should take everything we see, hear and read with a grain of salt. Most authors and commentators have a point of view (axe to grind) and we need to be aware of exactly what it is and how it affects the truth of their writings or comments.

 

And often times the winners like to embellish or leave out important things that happened because it might make them look unfavorable. Again I take history with a grain of salt. Theres always two sides to a story.

 

Hugs,

Greg

[Epigonos]

One must be careful when stating that there are two side to every story. That statement is frequently used to excuse the bad behavior an individual or a country. There are some who attempt to rationalize the Japanese Attach on Pearl Harbor by stating that the U.S. and its allies forced Japan into into invading South East Asia and bombing Pearl Harbor in order to obtain certain raw materials (oil and rubber for example) that the United States, Britain, and the Netherlands had refused to sell to Japan. That is indeed a fact, as far as it goes, but what the apologists fail to mention is that the ban on the sale of those items came only after the Japanese invasion and "rape" of China. In order to get a "complete" picture of many historical events one need to read several (many) sources and then come to ones own conclusion.

[+ Avalon]

One must be careful when stating that there are two side to every story. That statement is frequently used to excuse the bad behavior an individual or a country. There are some who attempt to rationalize the Japanese Attach on Pearl Harbor by stating that the U.S. and its allies forced Japan into into invading South East Asia and bombing Pearl Harbor in order to obtain certain raw materials (oil and rubber for example) that the United States, Britain, and the Netherlands had refused to sell to Japan. That is indeed a fact, as far as it goes, but what the apologists fail to mention is that the ban on the sale of those items came only after the Japanese invasion and "rape" of China. In order to get a "complete" picture of many historical events one need to read several (many) sources and then come to ones own conclusion.

 

Good point. But why what was was happening in East Asia any concern of the USA?

[Epigonos]

Avalon if you subscribe to a total non-intervention foreign policy then the U.S. should not have been concerned about the Japanese invasion of China and the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Chinese by the Japanese Armies. The U.S. should not have been concerned about the slaughter of millions of Jews, Gypsies and Gay in Nazi Germany. The U.S should not have been concerned about the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Kurds by the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein. The U.S. should not have been concerned about the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children in Darfur by the central Sudanese government. Many Hollywood luminaries, George Cluny included, protested vociferously the invasion of Iraqi, one purpose of which was, to protect the Kurds while demanding loudly that the U.S. take action to protect the people of Darfur.

 

The huge question invariably becomes just who decides when intervention is morally correct or morally incorrect. If, as some suggest, morality should be left out of these decisions then who decides what constitutes the best interests of the United States and thus when intervention is acceptable. Nearly all of these situations are the types where one is invariably "damned if you do and damned if you don't".

Edited August 1, 2018 by Epigonos

[+ Avalon]

Avalon if you subscribe to a total non-intervention foreign policy then the U.S. should not have been concerned about the Japanese invasion of China and the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Chinese by the Japanese Armies. The U.S. should not have been concerned about the slaughter of millions of Jews, Gypsies and Gay in Nazi Germany. The U.S should not have been concerned about the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Kurds by the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein. The U.S. should not have been concerned about the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children in Darfur by the central Sudanese government. Many Hollywood luminaries, George Cluny included, protested vociferously the invasion of Iraqi, one purpose of which was, to protect the Kurds while demanding loudly that the U.S. take action to protect the people of Darfur.

 

The huge question invariably becomes just who decided when intervention is morally correct or morally incorrect. If, as some suggest, morality should be left out of these decisions then who decides what constitutes the best interests of the United States and thus when intervention is acceptable. Nearly all of these situations are the types where one in invariably "damned if you do and damned if you don't".

 

I see it as a domino affect. If there had been no Spanish-American War then there were have been no Pacific "colonies" and if we had not annexed the Hawaiian Islands there would have been no US territories for Japan to attack.

 

And I think if we had not gotten involved in WWI there would have been no WWII, no nazi Germany, no Holocaust.

 

Why should the US have cared whether Kuwait became the 19th province of Iraq or not? All those Middle East boundaries were artificial creations made by the UK and France.

 

I don't think the US should either be the policeman or the social worker of the world.

[Rudynate]

 

 

I don't think the US should either be the policeman or the social worker of the world.

 

 

The US has the power and influence it does because it stepped up and assumed those roles after WWII. We wanted it. It wasn't anything anybody shoved down our throats.

[Epigonos]

Avalon you have a most interesting view of history. I'm afraid we will just have to agree to disagree on a number of you examples.

[+ Avalon]

Avalon you have a most interesting view of history. I'm afraid we will just have to agree to disagree on a number of you examples.

 

To be honest I'd have been happy with our borders just being from the Atlantic to the Rockies. No annexation of Texas. And the lands west of the five western states that border the Mississippi would have been given to the Native Americans. A nation of 3o states. No Manifest Destiny.

 

And military? A Coast Guard to protect our shores. No standing Army.

[+ quoththeraven]

To be honest I'd have been happy with our borders just being from the Atlantic to the Rockies. No annexation of Texas. And the lands west of the five western states that border the Mississippi would have been given to the Native Americans. A nation of 3o states. No Manifest Destiny.

 

And military? A Coast Guard to protect our shores. No standing Army.

None of that is what happened, so your interest in history seems more a product of a love of knowledge than critical thinking with present-day applications.

 

Also the idea of no standing army is absurd. What would we have done to secure airports and protect, say, the Capitol and White House on 9/11?

[+ tassojunior]

Avalon if you subscribe to a total non-intervention foreign policy then the U.S. should not have been concerned about the Japanese invasion of China and the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Chinese by the Japanese Armies. The U.S. should not have been concerned about the slaughter of millions of Jews, Gypsies and Gay in Nazi Germany. The U.S should not have been concerned about the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Kurds by the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein. The U.S. should not have been concerned about the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children in Darfur by the central Sudanese government. Many Hollywood luminaries, George Cluny included, protested vociferously the invasion of Iraqi, one purpose of which was, to protect the Kurds while demanding loudly that the U.S. take action to protect the people of Darfur.

 

The huge question invariably becomes just who decided when intervention is morally correct or morally incorrect. If, as some suggest, morality should be left out of these decisions then who decides what constitutes the best interests of the United States and thus when intervention is acceptable. Nearly all of these situations are the types where one in invariably "damned if you do and damned if you don't".

 

History's often quickly written by the victors but later researchers come up with a more balanced view.

 

The US was already attacking Japanese ships in the far east with boats from Pearl Harbor before that attack. Pearl Harbor didn't happen in a vacuum, we were already in military hostilities. It was just a surprise they attacked so quickly while negotiations over the hostilities were going on. That's not unusual and the negotiations weren't getting anywhere.

 

Pearl Harbor is why we got into WW2, not anything to do with Jews being gassed in Germany and Poland. I think that didn't even start until 1942. We refused to let refugees from Hitler into the US so we weren't too outraged at his actions. We went to war with Germany and Italy because they were allies of Japan with whom we were in a Pacific power struggle. Anglophiles wanted to help Britain somewhat, but even with FDR the US was very leery of helping Russia in it's war with Germany, which WW2 mostly was. Plan B, at least by 1945, was to attack Russia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable

 

I was surprised to see where even in Britain WW1 and WW2 are being combined in a view more sympathetic to Germany. Bismarck and the Kaiser wanted a German foreign empire like Britain's, especially in Africa. The intense rivalry between Britain and Germany caused WW1, nothing else. By the time Germany invaded France (with whom it had had a couple wars recently), it was clear Britain and Germany were headed to war. Archduke Ferdinand just happened to get shot at the right time. Militarism in both Britain and Germany caused WW1, which resumed as WW2.

 

The Versailles treaty was so outrageous against Germany, making it a pauper country in the boom times of the 1920's and the most destitute country in the Depression, that WW2 was inevitable. A fair treaty (or no WW1) might well have prevented Hitler and WW2. Not what Britain was interested in.

Edited August 2, 2018 by tassojunior

[+ Avalon]

None of that is what happened, so your interest in history seems more a product of a love of knowledge than critical thinking with present-day applications.

 

Also the idea of no standing army is absurd. What would we have done to secure airports and protect, say, the Capitol and White House on 9/11?

 

Local police and if need be call out the National Guard.

[+ Avalon]

History's often quickly written by the victors but later researchers come up with a more balanced view.

 

The US was already attacking Japanese ships in the far east with boats from Pearl Harbor before that attack. Pearl Harbor didn't happen in a vacuum, we were already in military hostilities. It was just a surprise they attacked so quickly while negotiations over the hostilities were going on. That's not unusual and the negotiations weren't getting anywhere.

 

Pearl Harbor is why we got into WW2, not anything to do with Jews being gassed in Germany and Poland. I think that didn't even start until 1942. We refused to let refugees from Hitler into the US so we weren't too outraged at his actions. We declared war on Germany and Italy because they were allies of Japan with whom we were in a Pacific power struggle with. Anglophiles wanted to help Britain somewhat, but even with FDR the US was very leery of helping Russia in it's war with Germany, which WW2 mostly was. Plan B in, at least by 1945, was to attack Russia.

 

I was surprised to see where even in Britain WW1 and WW2 are being combined in a view more sympathetic to Germany. Bismarck and the Kaiser wanted a German foreign empire like Britain's, especially in Africa. The intense rivalry between Britain and Germany caused WW1, nothing else. By the time Germany invaded France (with whom it had had a couple wars recently), it was clear Britain and Germany were headed to war. Archduke Ferdinand just happened to get shot at the right time. Militarism in both Britain and Germany caused WW1, which caused WW2.

 

The Versailles treaty was so outrageous against Germany, making it a pauper country in the boom times of the 1920's and the most destitute country in the Depression, that WW2 was inevitable. A fair treaty (or no WW1) might well have prevented Hitler and WW2. Not what Britain was interested in.

 

We got into WWII because of Pearl Harbor yet our emphasis was on Europe. What would we have done if Hitler had not declared war on the USA a few days after Pearl Harbor?

 

The UK and France went to war over Poland yet did nothing when the Soviets invaded Poland shortly after the nazis. And they didn't care that the Soviets imposed Communism on Poland for 40 years.

[N13]

 

......And I think if we had not gotten involved in WWI there would have been no WWII, no nazi Germany, no Holocaust......

 

 

Are you being sarcastic or are you delusional???!!!!!

[body2body]

There is a difference between reading History Books and the study of History. The Study of History is the examination of primary source documents created during a given period. These can be as dry as laws passed, and editorial discussion of the same in Newspapers, census information, shipping records, etc. It can also include, church sermons, political speeches, magazine articles, pamphlets, and essays. It can even include the examination of literature, poetry, popular music, plays, and painting, drawing, and sculpture. All these elements can be examined for their Political, Religous, Intellectual, Social, and Economic content (Historians call it the PRISE system or approach). The most important thing to consider is the Bias of the author or creator of any source. Who were they, what axe did they have to grind? If you don’t understand the author’s bias, then you will never have a clear, honest picture of what you are reading or studying.