The American History You're Not Supposed To Know

As, the post above me suggests. these type of articles I hate. They mix in facts that should be taught in every history class with BS such as half truths, lies, or complete misrepresentations. That's alot of links but to hell with it, got nothing else better to do on a Saturday morning.

Link #1 The Puritans

If anyone above the age of 12 still holds the idealistic view of the happy Pilgrims coming to America for religious freedom and what not, than either they slept through history class or further proof of America's failing schools. First, "There was no prohibition on the practice of Puritanism, an extreme fundamentalist form of Protestantism, in Britain." Yes there certainly was. If you didn't go to a Church of England church back then, you risked getting executed. The Puritans first moved to the Netherlands, where there was religious freedom. However, at realizing members were beginning to adapt some foreign traditions to their disliking, that's when they decided to come to America. In many ways, the Puritans were the fore-runners of modern day Evangelicals. As for the part about Washington, you think any other election hasn't been run that way? Washington had one of, if not the, largest distilleries in America. Why not use it to his advantage, assuming that story is true.

reply to post by warrenb


PURE PROPAGANDA - with vulgar language reading like it was written by a degenerate. In just one page on the American revo period (I didn't waste any more time after that) there were several completely made-up assertions (more than just "critical" left-wing interpretation).

I breezed thru the posts, and have not referenced the links yet..... but "The People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn would be very appropriate reading for those interested in the topic of this thread. It's kinda dry, but extremely eye-opening!

Originally posted by THELONIO
... it may be lies that your patriotism and pride is based upon but it is those lies that have made you patriotic and proud of your country, it wouldn't have been the same if your history was based on the truths, you may not have had those feelings of pride...

Living in reality might have the people taking a less patriotic, drum beating stance when the country's leadership rolls into, let say Iraq, with a trumped up reason and intentions of converting the people to a different form of government. Instead we stand and cheer for it and praise those that leadership and the money that controls it.

Originally posted by Nerevar
Good links. S&F!

More people need to read the other side of the coin. The problem is that history is written by the victors.

Therefore the truth quite often gets misconstrued. The most poignant point in the whole article is the fact that HARDLY ANYONE is aware of Britain's role in abolishing slavery WORLDWIDE. My forbears actively tried to stop the trade in humans be it through paying indirectly for the naval patrols off the coast of Africa or taking part in these patrols.

To this day, Britain is still accused of everything and anything to do with slavery but NEVER credited with being the first country in the world to abolished slavery and root out its benefactors.

Even the fact that Britain established treaties with the Indian nations of the Americas illustrates that we have always been (or at least tried to be) a tolerant and fair nation.

While i harbour no resentment towards our American descendants / cousins (quite literally cousins), i do feel that the representation of the actions of Britain during the "Revolution" were always distorted. Films such as The Patriot etc really anger me. The fact that they are blaming the "King of England" for unfair taxation smacks of ignorance...all laws in Britain were (and still are) passed through Parliament before reaching the King for his seal of approval.

More and more people should read this, obviously with a pinch of salt as it is considerably biased in its wording (bear in mind that slave trading in the Colonies was a legal trade up until the laws of England abolished it - so it cannot really be used as an insult) and you will be fine.

To be honest mate, I'm British and I couldn't disagree with you more. IMO, Britain has been THE driving force in nearly all of these matters and it's my belief that what we see in America, is a more 'transparent' form of manipulation that we here feel, and quite possibly, many other countries too. If only a fraction of what I believe is true, then I am ashamed to call myself British, I used to say it with pride, now, the thought of it disgusts me, now I'm a scouser!!

Just think for a second, Canada and Australia, both answer to Britain, China and India where 'released' from the Empire, when a 'stable' government was set up, we had a major part in constructing these governments.

George Bush is the Queen's second cousin and I was told the other day that Obama is George Bush's 11th cousin, I've looked for info on McCain, but so far, nada, but I'd bet my left testicle, he will be related to the Bush's in some way. This just screams to me of dynastic monarchs and I'd bet my other testicle that from America's conception, all presidents are all related! no mater how far removed!!

IMO, a 'ruling class' has never been gone, just changed their colours.

I haven't read any of the links atm, but I will be flagging thread, to keep track, will read them soon.

Thanks,

EMM

edit to add: Obama is Bush's cousin
www.nypost.com...

And another, apparently, it was Cheney's wife who discovered the connection, for her memoirs, Cheyney is also related to Bush and Obama.

rawstory.com...

Edit to add:

By Royal Proclamation, the British government stops the seizure of Indian lands by speculators from the Thirteen Colonies and establishes a frontier beyond which vast tracts of land are to be preserved in perpetuity where the Indian nations will be able to carry on their traditional way of life.


Ow, my brain hurts after that one. The Proclamation of 1763 wasn't to keep everything nice and happy with the Indians forever and ever. It served two purposes. First, it was a reward to the few Indian nations who sided with the British during the French and Indians(Seven Years) War. Secondly, the British government got all of French Canada from the war, and there was no logical way to govern it for the time being. Therefore, the line drew from the Proclamation was so to keep British colonists at bay until a way to govern it could be figured out.

Very interesting, I was reading about this a while ago, which basically said that this was brought into effect, to stop the expansion of the colony, before it got to big to be controlled. At the time, Britain wasn't prepared to police such a large land mass, so they tried to prevent expansion, to leave the colonies dependent on the Empire, needless to say, people didn't listen, so the war of Independence had to be started.

[edit on 8-11-2008 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]

[edit on 8-11-2008 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]

[edit on 8-11-2008 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]

I believe I wrote a few times life isn't exactly the way you were taught.

Until all change and work together for one another things are only going to get worse and I feel for the kids and grandkids, shame.

Most american really forgot or dont understand, that they indeed are not american, but euroamerican. Obama is now the first afroamerican president and what is the deal? Befor him there was white euroamerican president. Indians are the real native americans who was hounted like animals from europeans who then become the so called americans.

Why doesn't the website have any links to references to actual books or other printed works? That is only way to verify if the items on the time line are true considering that these are actual facts.

Overall, I think it is typical capitalist actions, where rich people can do whatever they want because they are the government.

Link #2

By Royal Proclamation, the British government stops the seizure of Indian lands by speculators from the Thirteen Colonies and establishes a frontier beyond which vast tracts of land are to be preserved in perpetuity where the Indian nations will be able to carry on their traditional way of life.

Ow, my brain hurts after that one. The Proclamation of 1763 wasn't to keep everything nice and happy with the Indians forever and ever. It served two purposes. First, it was a reward to the few Indian nations who sided with the British during the French and Indians(Seven Years) War. Secondly, the British government got all of French Canada from the war, and there was no logical way to govern it for the time being. Therefore, the line drew from the Proclamation was so to keep British colonists at bay until a way to govern it could be figured out.

Of course the pioneers were going to look for more Indian land. More and more of them were moving into the colonies every year, and major money was to be had if they could get their hands on it.

Ben Franklin held two slaves, but by 1787 he was the President of the Abolitionist Society of America.

Other than this, by 1773 there was no taxation of the Thirteen Colonies at all by Britain, making the revolutionary propaganda slogan “no taxation without representation” something of a mystery.

This is bang head on keyboard worthy. That slogan found its origins in conveniently absent acts such as the Stamp Act of 1765.

I'll leave the misunderstandings of the Boston Massacre as just the BS that is American public schools.

These pivotal legal decisions would ultimately lead to the abolition of slavery in all British colonies and possessions throughout the world.

In name maybe, but in practice no. Go ask the Chinese, Indians, Africans, or anyone else subject to British rule. If the British were serious about this in the colonies, why did slavery continue afterward?

Yes, all of the colonies may have been slave holding at the time, but slavery was on its way out in the North. By the time the discussion of the Constitution came around, several Northern States had already abolished slavery.

Also missing from the fantasyland version of the American Revolution sold to the American public is the central fact that, in 1768, the British had entered into treaties with the American Indian nations, prohibiting further theft of their land by speculators

And you want me to bring up all the already broken land treaties the British had with the Indians? There was a reason almost all of the Indians sided with the French during the Seven Years War. But America proudly kept the tradition of ignoring treaties with the Indians.

In contrast, Britain, the evil colonial power, not only ultimately abolished slavery in its own possessions but fought slavery worldwide, maintaining costly naval blockades of the African coast year-round and pursuing slave ships on the high seas, freeing captured Africans.

Britain was the biggest importer of slaves to the United States while the slave trade was still open, until it's close in the 1810's.

The Boston Tea Party was another event that has been mis constructed. Yes, John Hancock was a smuggler. However, they also had been subject to other various acts imposed by Britain. The Tea Act was seen as another way for the British to impose their authority on the colonies.

The Paul Revere thing, is again, another sad fact of most US public high school history courses.

Yes we tried to invade Canada during the Revolution, it was an utter failure.

Washington ordered that "parties should be detached to lay waste all the Iroquois settlements around, with instructions to do it in the most effectual manner, that the country may not be merely overrun, but destroyed."

Maybe because you're in this thing called a war and you have to take care of your enemies. The Iroquois were the greatest Indian threat to America during the war.

Somebody dig this mutha!

reply to post by Merriman Weir


Merriman hello again. Like i said once before us natives (savages) should of killed anyone that got of off a boat.

I don't know if I will ever have the time to go through all those links but thanks for posting. I looked at a few and they were pretty interesting,
however, why am I supposed to believe every word this guy types?

ugg, could that warning have come before I had typed a near 6500 character post.

Not very convincing. This blog page is filled with some truth, half truths, and a bunch taken out of context. It begs the question all over the place and presupposes motivations. To properly analyze what is covered here would take more than just a few blog pages. It all sounds very good but I think most educated Americans know a lot of what is the facts and what is embellishment. Yeah, Jefferson did nasty things to one of his slaves for sure. He also denounced slavery while he had slaves. The blog calls him a hypocrite but I doubt they bothered to understand how pained he was by the state of slavery. He found himself at a moral paradox and like most humans he (even in his brilliance) could not let go and do what was right. This blog is sensationalist and basically makes everything sound like money games and secret societies and big brother and everyone else is out to get you. Bravo. Above average quality but nonetheless conspiracy theory manure.

I saw a couple of sad thing with all the referenced material.

First and foremost, I received my education before many of the people here were born. I learned all these fact in grade school. Only in the modern era of US education have these facts been dumbed out of education and history books because kids today are being neglected by the education system. There are several reasons for this but that requires a different thread.

Second issue, most of the articles are written in a style to cause reaction instead of learning. The author clearly has an agenda. At first, it looks anti-American, but times cited are before America was established, so it must be anti-European which means white. Raced based hatred is among the most noneducational rational used as it places blame on race instead of individuals or society structure of the time.

Third, the author of the site left out "history" just as interesting but from a different perspective of the same events. I would venture it doesn't fit his agenda of placing blame, so these tidbits of knowledge were deliberately left out so the uneducated would not know there is more to be told.

Just my opinion, but I'd get some decent reference history books and read a little bit from reputable sources if any of these articles cited pique your interest.

Shinning Divine Light on the actions of the so-called Illuminati and other organizations like them is vital to planetary prosperity. The enemy must devour itself from within so that the peoples may regain former and lost religions as well as freedom from spiritual corruptions.

I, sort of, can by Rot(hel)child's claim be just on the side of rich without him showing us the paper work to prove what he can or does control - I respect his family (formerly Bauer...Red Shield? Sorry boys, Blue Trumps the dual conflict that no longer exists). The Thing is that he is annoyingly stupid and arrogant sometimes as we all can be with others, so that bothers me personally and most everyone else, too.

History is full of silliness and we are not going down like "Atlantis" did. Learn from the past because our Pride is not falling, knowwhatimean?

History is all SPIN. It entirely depends on who is writing the book as to how it is perceived. There may be 10 different versions of what happened on any given event; however, for consistent education purposes, the education system has to decide on ONE and move on. What we were taught in school was not lies, just a the same story told from a different point of view. You know the old saying: there are 2-sides to every story. And...the truth lies somewhere in between.

Just my 2-cents.

Originally posted by hinky
I saw a couple of sad thing with all the referenced material.

First and foremost, I received my education before many of the people here were born. I learned all these fact in grade school. Only in the modern era of US education have these facts been dumbed out of education and history books because kids today are being neglected by the education system. There are several reasons for this but that requires a different thread.

Second issue, most of the articles are written in a style to cause reaction instead of learning. The author clearly has an agenda. At first, it looks anti-American, but times cited are before America was established, so it must be anti-European which means white. Raced based hatred is among the most noneducational rational used as it places blame on race instead of individuals or society structure of the time.

Third, the author of the site left out "history" just as interesting but from a different perspective of the same events. I would venture it doesn't fit his agenda of placing blame, so these tidbits of knowledge were deliberately left out so the uneducated would not know there is more to be told.

Just my opinion, but I'd get some decent reference history books and read a little bit from reputable sources if any of these articles cited pique your interest.

Thank you for the educated observation.