Author Topic: Why we must believe the official history?  (Read 31618 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Penny_Wilson

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 107
    • View Profile
    • kingandwilson
Re: Why we must believe the official history?
« Reply #60 on: September 06, 2006, 01:45:19 PM »
Sorry -- double post...
"Don't do anything by half. If you love someone, love them with all your soul. When you go to work, work your ass off. When you hate someone, hate them until it hurts."  -- A Piece of Good Advice

Sometimes the truth hurts. And sometimes it feels real good. -- Henry Rollins

Offline grandduchessella

  • Global Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 13061
  • Getting Ready to Move to Europe :D
    • View Profile
    • Facebook page
Re: Why we must believe the official history?
« Reply #61 on: September 06, 2006, 01:53:05 PM »
I also think that those massacred by the pro-Confederate Quantrill Raiders (led by a psychopath responsible for hundreds of people masscred) might disagree as well.

There is a huge amount of propaganda on both sides--having been born in the North (and the proud descendant of those who fought on the Union side) but in a border state (Delaware) that was greatly conflicted about which side to enter and having lived in the Deep South (Biloxi where Beauvoir, the home of Jefferson Davis is) and seen all the Confederate days, etc...I feel comfortable saying this. Propaganda isn't always written by the victorious.

As someone whose degree is in history, I agree that there should always be 'digging around' past just accepting what is handed over though.
They also serve who only stand and wait--John Milton
Come visit on Pinterest--http://pinterest.com/lawrbk/

Offline Penny_Wilson

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 107
    • View Profile
    • kingandwilson
Re: Why we must believe the official history?
« Reply #62 on: September 06, 2006, 04:29:22 PM »

There is a huge amount of propaganda on both sides--having been born in the North (and the proud descendant of those who fought on the Union side) but in a border state (Delaware) that was greatly conflicted about which side to enter and having lived in the Deep South (Biloxi where Beauvoir, the home of Jefferson Davis is) and seen all the Confederate days, etc...I feel comfortable saying this. Propaganda isn't always written by the victorious.

My family's Civil War was the English one, I'm afraid.  ;D  By the 1860s, my immediate ancestry was almost completely Anglo-Indian, and although there were relatives here in the US (my two most famous American relatives are Texas Guinan and Virginia O'Hanlon -- "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus!"  :D ), I have no idea what participation these relatives had in the US Civil War.  So -- having no family tradition or personal stake in its history, I am endlessly fascinated by modern American "takes" on the Civil War --  and I have to agree that I find that propaganda exists on both sides, and sometimes seems remarkably fresh for such an old war.

As someone whose degree is in history, I agree that there should always be 'digging around' past just accepting what is handed over though.

Agreed -- though I would never want to have a part in revising the idea that fighting to end slavery was a good thing.

"Don't do anything by half. If you love someone, love them with all your soul. When you go to work, work your ass off. When you hate someone, hate them until it hurts."  -- A Piece of Good Advice

Sometimes the truth hurts. And sometimes it feels real good. -- Henry Rollins

Offline Annie

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4757
    • View Profile
    • Anna Anderson Exposed!
Re: Why we must believe the official history?
« Reply #63 on: September 06, 2006, 05:27:31 PM »

Wait a second.  Are you really saying that another 30-40 years -- another generation --
of slavery would have been acceptable in some way?  Not to re-fight the Civil War here, but I would like clarification on this point, because this seems to be what you're saying.

GOOD OLE PENNY! :D Always got to find something to jump on me for! Last time it was the Anne Frank/Anastasia thing! I see you didn't dare touch me on the Native American genocide thing, you only wanted to attack me on something you think can make me look bad and non PC. Well I was born and raised around this stuff, so don't act like I don't know it. I didn't get it off some biased internet site written after the fact, either. I grew up with it. I heard the old follks talking.

I NEVER EVER said it would have become acceptable- I said it would have become GONE as in EXTINCT as it should have been many years before! AND as it was slowly phased out, (if that had happened in the 1880's when the farm machinery came around) we would not have had the hard feeliings on both sides, or the impoverisment of the  poor blacks who were basically put out with nothing but the clothes on their backs. They would have had more of a chance to assimiliate into society over time, finding jobs. There wouldn't have been the resentment among the old guard of the south becasuse it would have been of their own free will. But of course, there are many if's in history, they mean nothing because they didn't happen.



Quote
Perhaps there was no sign over the gate reading "death camp"  -- but what about Andersonville?  http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USACWandersonville.htm

This is not to say that the Union did not have places like Elmira, but it is Andersonville that leaps to mind when thinking of American Civil War atrocities.  And it did belong to the Confederacy.

Weeeell now, you have to consider that Andersonville was in an area that had been marched through by Sherman. Farms were destroyed, houses burned around innocent women and children, supplies stolen and carried off on the backs of Yankee horses. Crops in the field were burned, as were barns.  People didn't have enough food for their children and livestock, much   less a herd of enemy soldiers. WHERE were the southerners supposed to get the food to feed these guys when, thanks to the Yank army, they coudln't even feed their own families? Thanks to the naval blockade, and destroyed railroads, there was no way to get supplies from anywhere else. Add to that the fact that the confederate money was by now worthless, and again, please explain how they were supposed to feed them, and with what? Really it was Lincoln's fault, the south realized they couldn't house  large numbers of prisoners, but Lincoln refused any prisoner exchanges, believing the more men were out of action, the faster the war would end.

However, there was NO such suffering in Elmira, NY. Though it was not a war torn area and there were plenty of supplies available, the rebel soldiers were also starved and given poor medical care. So what's the excuse for that?


Quote

For a really good examination of the Nat Turner story:

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/natturner/

I haven't read your link yet, but I'll find and post some of my own after my daughter gets her turn on the computer (She's bugging me) I also lived for several years within 20 miles of where this took place, I drove past the historical marker all the time, and I know this story too, not the way it's been twisted after the fact, and made politically correct over time. Yes, it was bad he was a slave. But it was also bad to kill all those people.

Any comments on the atrocities caused by Grant, Sherman and Sheridan against Native Americans? Or what about Lincoln's true feelings on the African Americans? (not honorable at all)
« Last Edit: September 06, 2006, 05:40:06 PM by Annie »

Offline Annie

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4757
    • View Profile
    • Anna Anderson Exposed!
Re: Why we must believe the official history?
« Reply #64 on: September 06, 2006, 05:35:03 PM »
I also think that those massacred by the pro-Confederate Quantrill Raiders (led by a psychopath responsible for hundreds of people masscred) might disagree as well.




They were terrible, but don't forget that John Brown and his sons also murdered people who disagreed with them. Brown is regarded as a hero by many too. Just because someone is on the 'right' side of an issue doesn't justify the wrong they do.

It's really shocking to think what people got away with in those days. With all the technology we have now, they'd be found out before it ever happened, like the terrorists and the London plane.

Offline Penny_Wilson

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 107
    • View Profile
    • kingandwilson
Re: Why we must believe the official history?
« Reply #65 on: September 06, 2006, 05:52:53 PM »

GOOD OLE PENNY! :D Always got to find something to jump on me for! Last time it was the Anne Frank/Anastasia thing! I see you didn't dare touch me on the Native American genocide thing, you only wanted to attack me on something you think can make me look bad and non PC.


I didn't "jump on you."  I asked you to clarify the meaning of a rather confusing statement.  I asked you about a Civil War-related opinion because -- as I explained in a later post -- I have an interest in the Civil War.  If I have to go on record as having addressed every subject you raised, then I suppose I will say here that I am against the "Native American genocide."  Obviously.  I don't think too many people are for it, just like I don't think many people are for the idea of slavery having lasted any longer than it did  -- which is why I asked you to explain your statement.  Now we've come full-circle with my thoughts on your post, I think it's time to end this discussion.  There's no point in trying to converse with someone who responds with such hostility.

And in any event, this subject is way off-topic for this board.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2006, 06:03:31 PM by Penny_Wilson »
"Don't do anything by half. If you love someone, love them with all your soul. When you go to work, work your ass off. When you hate someone, hate them until it hurts."  -- A Piece of Good Advice

Sometimes the truth hurts. And sometimes it feels real good. -- Henry Rollins

Alixz

  • Guest
Re: Why we must believe the official history?
« Reply #66 on: September 06, 2006, 06:24:56 PM »
Give a good "Rebel yell" anywhere south of the Mason Dixon Line and you will find that the American Civil War is still going on.  It may have officially ended over 140 years ago, but in the hearts of many and through the traditions passed down through generations, it is still going on.

And, although, if you read many American History texts used in schools across the US, you will still find that the "cause" of the war was slavery and its related problems. That was not truly the caase.  Again, south of the Mason Dixon, you would find that the reason was "states rights"  The right of any state who vountarily joined the Union to just as voluntarily leave it.

And Liberia was bought and set up in Africa by the Lincoln administration to send the freed slaves back to Africa.  Lincoln did not plan to have them stay here.

And also, when the Emancipation Proclaimation was issued, it freed only those slaves in states that "were currently in rebellion" and did nothing for the slaves in pro-union states or those territories that had not yet joined as states.  The reason was to destroy more of the South's crumbling economy, not to ease the pain of the slaves.  Because now that they were free, they had no where to live and no way to feed their families and they ended up in "ghettos" all around Washington, DC. Did Lincoln provide any transition from slavery to freedom?  Nope, he just wanted the war to end and if destroying the South's ecomony by freeing the slaves helped to do that, then he did it.

And I agree with those who mention Sherman's "March to the Sea".  It was an abomination and the worst treatment of US citizens by the US government at that time.

The states he invaded had left the union and so were technically no longer US citizens, but that doesn't excuse what he did to the women and children who were left behind by their fighting husbands, sons and brothers.

OK.  I am off my soap box about the American Civil War.  But believe me, what I just posted was not what we were taught in history class.  Although it is now known to be the truth.

So always dig and always question.  This is not revisionist history.  This is the truth uncovered when the "spin" has stopped.

And also, way way off topic for this board.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2006, 06:26:56 PM by Alixz »

Offline Annie

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4757
    • View Profile
    • Anna Anderson Exposed!
Re: Why we must believe the official history?
« Reply #67 on: September 06, 2006, 06:31:55 PM »
Quote
I asked you to clarify the meaning of a rather confusing statement.

I am glad I got to clear up that misunderstanding. I did mean that it was my theory that slavery would have died out on its own in another 20 years without the war because of advances in farm machinery making it even more obsolete, and not financially realstic to the rich land owners.I never meant to imply in any way that it would have become acceptable. I know all those people lived a different life and had different values than us, but for me it is still hard to believe the US  still had slaves so late into history! Russia had only beaten then in freeing the serfs by a few years. I also really wanted to explain the other side of Andersonville/Elmira, too. It's something most people don't conisider when just looking at things face value. So 'digging' is good!

One thing that is both sad and fascinating about all history is that no one is ever as totally good or evil as they are presented to be, in any country, any war, any time. Also, as George Lucas said in an interview discussing the 'good' and 'dark' sides, no one who is evil sees himself as evil- they always feel they are the one doing the right thing ('good is a point of view' 'from a certain point of view.') People will do anything to justify their positions and rationalize it away if they want to do it anyway and not feel guilty. It may be unbelieveable to us looking back, but everyone on every side of everything always thought they were the good guy :P

And while this is technically off topic, the name of the thread doesn't specify 'official history' of what ;)

Offline Annie

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4757
    • View Profile
    • Anna Anderson Exposed!
Re: Why we must believe the official history?
« Reply #68 on: September 06, 2006, 06:50:01 PM »
Give a good "Rebel yell" anywhere south of the Mason Dixon Line and you will find that the American Civil War is still going on.  It may have officially ended over 140 years ago, but in the hearts of many and through the traditions passed down through generations, it is still going on.

True, though it has been slowly fading a little over the last 20 or so years. When I was a kid it was stilll very strong. Now the only ones who are really gung ho (at least around here) are the ones who put the flag on their truck and don't even know what it means, and use it the wrong way. The resentment of the war was very bitter for southerners, and the deep rooted feelings lasted a long, long time, passed down through the generations, as you say.

Quote
And, although, if you read many American History texts used in schools across the US, you will still find that the "cause" of the war was slavery and its related problems. That was not truly the caase.  Again, south of the Mason Dixon, you would find that the reason was "states rights"  The right of any state who vountarily joined the Union to just as voluntarily leave it.

And these days, it's become non PC to suggest it was anything else but slavery. In those days, the North and South were two very distinct regions who were really more like different countries. The South saw itself as wanting its freedom and independance much as the US did from England in 1776. Jefferson Davis even likened himself to George Washington, his hero. The fact is, only about a quarter of all southerners owned slaves, and less than ten percent were the wealthy plantation owners people usually think of when they think of the South.

It's also true that the 10th admendment techically left the door open for secession- so technically Lincoln was WRONG and unconstitutional to call for troops to put down the 'insurrection.' Many southerners feared being part of one big gpvernment back in the 1780's, and if you look, southern states were among the last to ratify the constitution. They never would have joined if they didn't think they couldn't have gotten out if they wanted to.

Quote
And Liberia was bought and set up in Africa by the Lincoln administration to send the freed slaves back to Africa.  Lincoln did not plan to have them stay here.

True, Many people don't realize this. He didn't believe that blacks and whites should live together as one society, that's why he wanted them shipped back to Africa. It bothers me that Lincoln, Sherman, Grant and Sheridan are reverered as some kind of heroes of racial justice when they were actually bigots themselves.

Quote
And also, when the Emancipation Proclaimation was issued, it freed only those slaves in states that "were currently in rebellion" and did nothing for the slaves in pro-union states or those territories that had not yet joined as states.  The reason was to destroy more of the South's crumbling economy, not to ease the pain of the slaves.  Because now that they were free, they had no where to live and no way to feed their families and they ended up in "ghettos" all around Washington, DC. Did Lincoln provide any transition from slavery to freedom?  Nope, he just wanted the war to end and if destroying the South's ecomony by freeing the slaves helped to do that, then he did it.

Good point, though I never understood how he had any say over what happened in a place that considered itself a separate nation. Also excellent point about how the poor blacks ended up in 'ghettos'. I touched on that in my last post too. They went from at least being fed and housed to being homeless. Some stayed on as sharecroppers, others went north where they found the workers there resented them trying to take their jobs. This led to mass poverty that would not have happened if slavery had phased out on its own. So while they were declared 'free', no provisions were made for their actual lives! The proclaimation was only to look good on paper politically, and to stop England from joining the Confederates, as they had been considering doing because their textile mills needed southern cotton. With the mighty British Empire on their side, the south likely could have prevailed. So Lincoln had to get shifty and think quick about something to stop this- THAT is when, for the first time, slavery was made THE issue. And he used it for his own political devices, not to help the slaves!

Quote
And I agree with those who mention Sherman's "March to the Sea".  It was an abomination and the worst treatment of US citizens by the US government at that time.

The states he invaded had left the union and so were technically no longer US citizens, but that doesn't excuse what he did to the women and children who were left behind by their fighting husbands, sons and brothers.

OK.  I am off my soap box about the American Civil War.  But believe me, what I just posted was not what we were taught in history class.  Although it is now known to be the truth.

So always dig and always question.  This is not revisionist history.  This is the truth uncovered when the "spin" has stopped.




Excellent post, you are absolutely right!

Offline Penny_Wilson

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 107
    • View Profile
    • kingandwilson
Re: Why we must believe the official history?
« Reply #69 on: September 06, 2006, 09:45:18 PM »

I am glad I got to clear up that misunderstanding.

Great!  Me too -- I'm glad it's all cleared up.  :D

I also really wanted to explain the other side of Andersonville/Elmira, too. It's something most people don't conisider when just looking at things face value. So 'digging' is good!

I do take your point about Andersonville -- but for how long after Sherman's army marched through were those men still imprisoned?

You're very lucky to live near so much Civil War history.  Greg and I drove through many of those states in the summer of 2000, but we were on a tight schedule and hadn't time to stop.  One day, though...  ;D
"Don't do anything by half. If you love someone, love them with all your soul. When you go to work, work your ass off. When you hate someone, hate them until it hurts."  -- A Piece of Good Advice

Sometimes the truth hurts. And sometimes it feels real good. -- Henry Rollins

Offline Annie

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4757
    • View Profile
    • Anna Anderson Exposed!
Re: Why we must believe the official history?
« Reply #70 on: September 06, 2006, 10:07:45 PM »
Quote
I do take your point about Andersonville -- but for how long after Sherman's army marched through were those men still imprisoned?

Until the end of the war, because they weren't allowed to release them because of the ban on prisoner exchanges. They were stuck there because of Lincoln's own law. Same with the ones in Elmira.

Which brings up another topic- the fact that many mothers and wives in the North hated Lincoln and called Grant a  'butcher' because he thought nothing of losing 3 men to the Rebels' 1 if it would help them gain a victory. Many in the North did not give a damn if the South had its independance or not, and just wanted the slaughter to stop. Lincoln came very close to losing the 1864 election to ex Union general George McClellan who had  promised to end the war if elected. There were also anti-draft protests in the North (the most famous one in NYC was acted out in "Gangs of New York") A man could buy his or his son's way out of the draft for $300, which really wasn't fair to the poor of any ethnicity. Also, black soldiers were often treated unfairly by the Union army, putting them in more dangerous situations in which larger numbers were likely to be killed (same with the Irish)

« Last Edit: September 06, 2006, 10:10:07 PM by Annie »

Offline Belochka

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4447
  • City of Peter stand in all your splendor - Pushkin
    • View Profile
Re: Why we must believe the official history?
« Reply #71 on: September 06, 2006, 10:56:56 PM »
Remember also Lenin saying "The revolution doesn't need historians."

With respect, lenin's verbalization is taken out of its intended context. Perhaps this is a fine example how exerpts from "official" history can be easily redirected to accomodate discussion?

To her death, Empress Marie, did not ever admit that her son and his wife and grandchildren were dead.  Did she secretly mourn?  Who knows.  Was she simply detaching herself from reality?  Who knows.  But if you believe her account, then no one was executed.

She chose to question the official reports.  And in the end, If she could do that, why can't we?


The Dowager did not "choose" to "question" the official reports. As a mother, traumatized by the course of events that she experienced, her reaction was probably one of denial. Not an unusual clinical scenario. She herself was a survivor, who in all likelihood used that denial as a defensive mechanism, to minimize her grief. The preponderance of forensic evidence before her, however was overwhelmingly correct.   

Certainly if we all too decide to collectivelly deny the massacre, then surely it would only promote the eruption of survivalist hypotheses? 


Faces of Russia is now on Facebook!


http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/

Offline Annie

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4757
    • View Profile
    • Anna Anderson Exposed!
Re: Why we must believe the official history?
« Reply #72 on: September 07, 2006, 11:06:11 AM »
I can understand how the elderly dowager Empress chose to deny the tragic reports of their deaths because it was too heartbreaking and devastating for her. But for most people there's no such emotional connection so I can't understand why there is so much denial, even after most of the bodies were found. It has no bearing on their lives one way or the other. But, I guess that's why we're here, to talk about it.

Offline Belochka

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4447
  • City of Peter stand in all your splendor - Pushkin
    • View Profile
Re: Why we must believe the official history?
« Reply #73 on: September 07, 2006, 09:32:57 PM »
I can understand how the elderly dowager Empress chose to deny the tragic reports of their deaths because it was too heartbreaking and devastating for her. But for most people there's no such emotional connection so I can't understand why there is so much denial, even after most of the bodies were found. It has no bearing on their lives one way or the other. But, I guess that's why we're here, to talk about it.

Wonderful point Annie!

The Dowager had a personal direct emotional connection when she received that tragic news. We do not.

Margarita


Faces of Russia is now on Facebook!


http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/

Offline Annie

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4757
    • View Profile
    • Anna Anderson Exposed!
Re: Why we must believe the official history?
« Reply #74 on: September 08, 2006, 07:39:58 AM »
I can understand how the elderly dowager Empress chose to deny the tragic reports of their deaths because it was too heartbreaking and devastating for her. But for most people there's no such emotional connection so I can't understand why there is so much denial, even after most of the bodies were found. It has no bearing on their lives one way or the other. But, I guess that's why we're here, to talk about it.

Wonderful point Annie!

The Dowager had a personal direct emotional connection when she received that tragic news. We do not.

Margarita


Thanks! I could never understand why some people get so upset over being told AA wasn't AN, even to the point of becoming personally insulting over it (like Michael G and bigbee) to those who don't believe in AA. What makes a difference to them if it was her or not? She's not their family, they will get no fortune. So why so vehemently agressive over it? Why keep pushing it with outrageous conpsiracy theories of intestine switches? I don't get it!

I know people personally whose lives have been directly affected by DNA tests, such as a guy who now must pay child support for a child he didn't think was his, but the DNA proved was. But  you don't catch him screaming that the tests were rigged, the other possible father switched the blood vials, etc. This is HIS LIFE and HIS MONEY we're talking about here, and he doesn't argue the results. The court accepts DNA as the final word, and everyone else must too, like it or not.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2006, 07:42:20 AM by Annie »