Questions about the subject of History in general.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Very cool. This isn't particularly revising history. it seems more like filling in the blanks. one would hope that the author also includes similar suppression of facts by the Viet Cong NK and Russian-Chinese who also used Vietnam as a proxy war...

Rather then filling in the blanks I see it as giving context ...first order of history should be context to make it un-ambiguous to the reader .If that is the intention of telling the story . They were hard days as the second wife took my 3 vintage corvettes and ran off with the pool man . I was left facing to decide between living at that drab 40,000ft space on the Gulf and returning to Paris where I could dabble once again in my finger painting in the SW tower of my good friends castle ...Oh what to do ,oh what to do ....

a reply to: nwtrucker

What is history?

History is what is written by observers of events as they occur.

History is what happens when a series of events take place with a chronological order.

History is often convoluted and misconstrued to have one meaning when there is a hidden agenda involved.

History is connected to subjective and objective interpretation.

History is translated from one language to another by scholars that supposedly "know" what it is they are translating.

History is based on a "false" conception of time created from thin air based on knowledge of events that were not observable.

History can be changed and altered to meet a criteria for suggestive programming.

History can not be verified by anyone not involved, therefore history is most likely a pack of lies and half truths intended to mislead those not involved into believing the "truth" which creates the conspiratorial aspect of all history.

History is shoved down our throats from a very early age through schools and religions and governments, even our parents are involved unknowingly in the conspiracy because they themselves were "brainwashed" from an early age to believe historical accounts of events.

History is what we allow it to be and what we choose to agree with that has been passed along as being "truthful" renditions.

History is carbon dating that has no basis or foundation to be accurate because it is a man made scientific equation that many historical events are said to have happened.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: nwtrucker

Very cool. This isn't particularly revising history. it seems more like filling in the blanks. one would hope that the author also includes similar suppression of facts by the Viet Cong NK and Russian-Chinese who also used Vietnam as a proxy war...

Rather then filling in the blanks I see it as giving context ...first order of history should be context to make it un-ambiguous to the reader .If that is the intention of telling the story . They were hard days as the second wife took my 3 vintage corvettes and ran off with the pool man . I was left facing to decide between living at that drab 40,000ft space on the Gulf and returning to Paris where I could dabble once again in my finger painting in the SW tower of my good friends castle ...Oh what to do ,oh what to do ....

all three 'vettes'? A 'contract' is the appropriate course of action....

Why is it history not her story?

a reply to: nwtrucker

Oh I so much fell into thinking such things ..I finally decided to tell a story that I could laugh at instead of doing hard time where dropping a bar of soap could have resulted in a very uncomfortable predicament ...:>)

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: nwtrucker

The was a native version. it was, iirc, counting coup....

say wha ???

"counting coup".

Again, If I recall correctly, It was an act of celebration after defeating an enemy. It was the taking of some possession of the enemy or even just touching them,

It could and did include the taking of scalps.

I'm not sure of the spelling, phonically, I believe it was 'coo'.


For me this goes way back, 40-50 years ago. Source? Teacher? It escapes....

a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

History can tell a story of past present and future . Who ? as a writer is your audience . Orwell was well ahead of his time in recording present history . Do you think that maybe he was privy to their plan ? many think so . Carroll Quigleys book Tragedy and hope is a profound document of history .Not only past and his present but also our future ....

Is the adage true: "You can't like history if you don't like swords"?

To me it is, nobody has a squeaky-clean or pleasant history.

It's true that almost all people (including my Germanic ancestors) were stuck between a "hippie" and "barbarian" stereotype.

But we should also have women's history - or "herstory", if you like.

originally posted by: halfoldman
Is the adage true: "You can't like history if you don't like swords"?

To me it is, nobody has a squeaky-clean or pleasant history.

It's true that almost all people (including my Germanic ancestors) were stuck between a "hippie" and "barbarian" stereotype.

But we should also have women's history - or "herstory", if you like.

Trouble is, we'd never hear the end of it...........................................................

a reply to: nwtrucker

Here are two links to the major part of the full history that you will have to put together yourself ... en.wikipedia.org... and en.wikipedia.org... If the stories were not true then the Province of Nova Scotia would not have had to acknowledge them by removing the names from ....www.1015thehawk.com... remember I said that future history is still being fought to correct ...

a reply to: halfoldman

Does anybody know who counted populations?

I mean some books say there were 1 million to 4 million Native Americans in North America (which focused on them as proto-eco-warriors who never changed the landscape).
On Facebook though I see posters that claim that 100 million Native Americans lived in North America when Columbus landed in the Bahamas in 1492.
Who actually counted them all?
Did Columbus send somebody to count them all?
I'm not from America, so I was just wondering.

And when people say that on average people didn't grow older than 40 years in certain eras, does that really mean (average) that people over 40 were a rarity? On average there could have been loads of old people around?

originally posted by: halfoldman
a reply to: halfoldman

Does anybody know who counted populations?

I mean some books say there were 1 million to 4 million Native Americans in North America (which focused on them as proto-eco-warriors who never changed the landscape).
On Facebook though I see posters that claim that 100 million Native Americans lived in North America when Columbus landed in the Bahamas in 1492.
Who actually counted them all?
Did Columbus send somebody to count them all?
I'm not from America, so I was just wondering.

Population history of indigenous peoples of the Americas

Given the fragmentary nature of the evidence, even semi-accurate pre-Columbian population figures are impossible to obtain. Scholars have varied widely on the estimated size of the indigenous populations prior to colonization and on the effects of European contact.[3] Estimates are made by extrapolations from small bits of data. In 1976, geographer William Denevan used the existing estimates to derive a "consensus count" of about 54 million people. Nonetheless, more recent estimates still range widely.[4]

Using an estimate of approximately 37 million people in 1492 (including 6 million in the Aztec Empire, 8 million in the Mayan States, 11 million in what is now Brazil, and 12 million in the Inca Empire), the lowest estimates give a death toll due from disease of 90% by the end of the 17th century (nine million people in 1650).[5] Latin America would match its 15th-century population early in the 20th century; it numbered 17 million in 1800, 30 million in 1850, 61 million in 1900, 105 million in 1930, 218 million in 1960, 361 million in 1980, and 563 million in 2005.[5] In the last three decades of the 16th century, the population of present-day Mexico dropped to about one million people.[5] The Maya population is today estimated at six million, which is about the same as at the end of the 15th century, according to some estimates.[5] In what is now Brazil, the indigenous population declined from a pre-Columbian high of an estimated four million to some 300,000.

While it is difficult to determine exactly how many Natives lived in North America before Columbus,[6] estimates range from a low of 2.1 million (Ubelaker 1976) to 7 million people (Russell Thornton) to a high of 18 million (Dobyns 1983).[7]

The Aboriginal population of Canada during the late 15th century is estimated to have been between 200,000[8] and two million,[9] with a figure of 500,000 currently accepted by Canada's Royal Commission on Aboriginal Health.[10] Repeated outbreaks of Old World infectious diseases such as influenza, measles and smallpox (to which they had no natural immunity), were the main cause of depopulation. This combined with other factors such as dispossession from European/Canadian settlements and numerous violent conflicts resulted in a forty- to eighty-percent aboriginal population decrease after contact.[8] For example, during the late 1630s, smallpox killed over half of the Wyandot (Huron), who controlled most of the early North American fur trade in what became Canada. They were reduced to fewer than 10,000 people.[11]

Historian David Henige has argued that many population figures are the result of arbitrary formulas selectively applied to numbers from unreliable historical sources. He believes this is a weakness unrecognized by several contributors to the field, and insists there is not sufficient evidence to produce population numbers that have any real meaning. He characterizes the modern trend of high estimates as "pseudo-scientific number-crunching." Henige does not advocate a low population estimate, but argues that the scanty and unreliable nature of the evidence renders broad estimates inevitably suspect, saying "high counters" (as he calls them) have been particularly flagrant in their misuse of sources.[12] Many population studies acknowledge the inherent difficulties in producing reliable statistics, given the scarcity of hard data.[citation needed]

The population debate has often had ideological underpinnings.[13] Low estimates were sometimes reflective of European notions of cultural and racial superiority. Historian Francis Jennings argued, "Scholarly wisdom long held that Indians were so inferior in mind and works that they could not possibly have created or sustained large populations."[14] On the other hand, some[who?] have claimed that contemporary estimates of a high pre-Columbian indigenous population are rooted in a bias against Western civilization and/or Christianity.

The indigenous population of the Americas in 1492 was not necessarily at a high point and may actually have been in decline in some areas. Indigenous populations in most areas of the Americas reached a low point by the early 20th century. In most cases, populations have since begun to climb.[15]

And when people say that on average people didn't grow older than 40 years in certain eras, does that really mean (average) that people over 40 were a rarity? On average there could have been loads of old people around?

No, average is just that an average. If you have two people, one lives to 5 and the other lives to 75, the average life expectancy of both people would be 40 years old. The high rates of infanticide dropped life expectancy. Also, things like infections and diseases were killers too, so if you didn't have a decent immune system, you'd be toast at some point.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Thanks for clarifying.


I can't say I'm factually much wiser, but nice to draw attention to how history is constructed.

a reply to: halfoldman

Well at least you know the numbers aren't pulled out of thin air anymore.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Indeed, the historical air is very dense!

a reply to: halfoldman

All I can say is, I sometimes feel I know more about the Pharaohs, the stone-age, various aboriginal peoples or speculation on aliens than about my own ancestry.

Terms and names like Charlemagne, The Holy Roman Empire, The Crimean War; even the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars, are quite vague to me.

Let alone the Seven-Year War - the first real World War, that really broke the back of many European and Native American communities.

I'm hoping to improve that knowledge.