Recorded General History

[bigscoop]

Don't really need to single anything out here or over-think the question as this is simply a general history question. Personally, over the years I've come to believe that most of what we were taught in school and much of what we research later on in life is only marginally accurate.

 

[Jeffro]

I hit 50%- just my opinion. Much of what we are taught is propaganda, and as we all know history is written by the victors so...........

But I still think there's enough factual evidence out there to cover the "other" 49% or so which may be considered truth.

On the other hand, 99% of the crap we are inundated with on a daily basis is BS.... so we just gotta do our best to sort it out and teach our kids right

 

[deepskyal]

I like the history that was written 100 years ago. I would give it a higher percentage than half...maybe 80% or better. Most of what I read on history was written back in the late 1800's or very early 1900's. Or better is the old newspapers from the late 1700's to mid 1800's...they wrote it like it was...as it happened!

It's the modern history, the politically corrected versions of the past that have been diluted and skewed...in my opinion.

Al

 

[oldgoat]

I agree with Deep, go back to the old papers, journals of the folks who were there...I've become more and more fascinated by the Indian Wars over the years and grew up on John Wayne westerns, that I had to start doing the research of some of the films. It has been a fun journey....
Back on subject, I think maybe 25% is accurate....goat

 

[Coinstriking Michigan]

It's hard to tell what's accurate as far as written history, I mean if you think about it..they have actually convinced people that all the absurd stories about religion are true. They believe that there actually is an invisible man up in the sky.

 

[bigscoop]

I think a lot of times recorded history is based on personal opinion or on the writer's/victor's personal perception, which may or may not have been the actual case. I'm sure factors like accountability and reputations also influenced a lot of what was written.

 

[naturegirl]

I voted half, but I think that may be more than what I really believe. Right now I'm fairly jaded at what american kids are taught about the Native american history, at least my generation. And the way I see people try and maniputlate the truth for their own gain today. Makes me question the quote of 'doomed to repeat history if you don't know history'. I'm re-thinking that too. If you don't know the truth, how can you avoid the same mistakes? I enjoy history, but I've come to seek out the opposing thoughts of what is taught as "true history", and draw my own conclusions, if there are any clear ones to be drawn. Interesting question bigscoop

 

[Red James Cash]

Here you go everybody.

A patriots history of the United States.... by...Larry Schweikart and michael allen
Lies across America, what our historic sites get wrong....by.. James W. Loewen
Lies my teacher told me....by...James W. Loewen

All excellent reading, pretty informative.

 

[pyledriver]

All you have to do is watch archaeologists and historians reactions to anything that upsets the generally accepted theory. They begin to foam at the mouth every time somebody digs up some indian artifact indicating occupation of north America earlier than what is taught. Who discovered America? Why did Columbus really set sail? Going further back, why do some findings just not seem to 'fit' historical accounts? What reaction does the community give to those findings and questions-well, they either ignore them or try to ridicule the finder. Now that's a little further back. Modern history is in the process of being rewritten before our very eyes! Seems it's just not politically correct enough..

 

[Red James Cash]

pyledriver. lots of evidence in massachusetts of things that shouldnt be. The evidence of their existence right there infront of the archaeologists face but of course theyre discounted and ruled hoaxs because they dont excist in government taught history. Put a 200 mile circle around my house and i could sit here and type all day about pieces of evidence that excist that you will not find in one school history book. Everything from roman anforeta jugs found off the coast of maine to a celtic bronze dagger found in an native american shell pile to ancient celtic ogam inscriptions that were deciphered to read "cargo platform for ships from phoenicia" to a bronze shield, very similar to one owned by a templar knight that was auctioned off in london, found off massachusetts in a fishermans net.The list goes on and on. But columbus was here first

 

[thrillathahunt]

Well, the book I most believe in was written over a span of about 1600 years by 40 different authors and personally it hasn't steered me wrong yet.

 

[Ray S ECenFL]

In 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue, yada, yada, yada, sad that our children are not being taught the true history, only what appears to be politically correct.

Historically, there have been many visits to the USA BEFORE 1492. Columbus gets the credit but there is a lot of evidence to prove that trade had been going on for a long period of time before Columbus.

Perhaps one day, we will adjust our society to tell the truth about our past no matte how inconvenient it may be to those who are in charge.

We can only hope. As the saying goes, the truth is out there.

HH.

 

[soniya]

i hit Less then 25%, because it has no scientific proves...........

 

[Richard Ray]

Much written history changes with each new generation of writers. When reseaching I always use the oldest information possible, then read several different sources if possible. Example: when researching the Aztec I use the "Letters to King Charles from Cortez" and "History of the Conquest of Mexico", etc.. When studying Texas history, I use history books dating in the 1800's. They will often give great detail on early expeditions even how many pigs, chickens, flour, lead shot and gunpowder they had, whereas the modern version will have a single sentence if anything.
Richard