White Washing and Censorship of History

You folks like Columbus Day? Get a day off work, government holiday! Awesome. Well, what if I told you Christopher Columbus was less of an explorer and more of a genocidal invader, working to pillage and extract as much gold and spices as he cold from the Americas? That he was quite in the vein of other conquistadors.
That he was a villain! A villain with good publicity, mind you, but a villain!

You folks know the Pilgrims? They didn't get along with the Indians like some Disney sing along. They turned on them, and got started on oppressing them. The whole split with the English dates back to the greed of Colonial types encroaching on Indian land even after a treaty had been established, starting bad blood with them and causing the Colonists to ask the British to send soldiers to defend them. Well, they do, and the French and Indian war begins.

You see, the enemies change over time. Back when we were British Colonists, we were enemies with the French and the Indians. Canada was pretty close to some of the territory of the colonies, so both sides were a bit on edge. According to one side of history, the French and the Indian tribes collude, and attack.

War ain't cheap, though, so Britain tells the Colonies to pay for the war they just fought on their behalf, but they want none of it. You see, it's pragmatic to do this. The british were just worn down from fighting a war, so they were in no shape to defeat a rebellion, especially with the French thirsty for revenge back home in Europe.

So the Americans are in a good position to rebel. The Indian population's been worn down from war and some primitive yet effective biological warfare. The British are worn and tired from fighting a war with the French, who have been pushed further north by such a thing.

Opportunistic, yes, but morally in the right? Nope. But getting out from the yolk of British oppression isn't easy!
Speaking of which, why does nobody ever talk about these atrocities? The oppression caused by the Allies. Germany, you can't go a day without somebody speaking of the Government's atrocities. Japan has whitewashed it's history to a large degree though. They take very little responsibility for their war crimes.

The victors write history.
In particular, some authors are worse than others.
I'd say Abraham Lincoln is one of the worst whitewashed figures in American history. You've got a man who suspended the constitution, furthered the will of the oppressive Federalist government with an iron fist, and waged war against fellow Americans.

Does anyone else care to share a story about your own historical figures as they actually were, and not as the exaggerated hero worship caricature of them?

Nice post. Right in the spirit of "Those that do not remember history are doomed to repeat it"...or something to that effect.

To me, the biggest lie in the "alteration" of modern history is reflection on the Civil War as well. Soooo many people this day and age like to romantically believe that the war was fought over slavery...it was not. Abolition was a tool used AFTER the war was well on to garner northern state's support when the Union was not doing so well against the Confederacy...it was a tool, not a cause.

There are many-many things like this, too many to mention off the tip of my tongue. History is being quietly manipulated to steer the young and growing minds of the future.

Just my opinion though...

Did someone once say "history is written by the winners"? I don't think that's the full saying.

reply to post by Grifter42

Ha! Ha! Got detention in high school ... jeez 25 years ago, for insisting that Columbus was a war hungry, profiteering, genocidal tyrant. The teacher was hell bent on saying he was a great, great man. S&F

reply to post by Grifter42

Genocide? No. Unfortunate? Definitely.

Worn down? Hardly. The English were still the most powerful military force in the world.

Germany and Japan were Axis, not Allies.

Lincoln ruled with an iron fist and waged war on fellow Americans? Nah. The southern states seceded and the Union moved to bring them back and it sort of snowballed. But the Irish in the north basically were slaves though. And if I remember correctly, Lincoln actually wanted to send all blacks back to Africa.

Anyways, what are you alluding to? That the entire western world is a bunch of liars? Because you've said nothing on other countries.

reply to post by XLR8R


The government doesn't want people to question it's actions in the past, because if they do, they might later question it's actions in the future. They don't want to teach kids the true history, where the great discoverer of the Americas is a blood drenched monster. Matter of fact, Columbus wasn't even the first European to discover the Americas. He was beaten by the Vikings who discovered the Northern part of the continent. But I digress. Columbus was a monster who helped lay the tracks for centuries of brutality and genocide against the Indians.

Originally posted by CrisMajor
reply to post by Grifter42

 

Genocide? No. Unfortunate? Definitely.

If not genocide, what would you call it? It was the deliberate depopulation of a people to make room for a new population to move in and live on their land. They wanted living room. And they were different than them.

Originally posted by CrisMajor
reply to post by Grifter42

 

Worn down? Hardly. The English were still the most powerful military force in the world.

Worn down enough to be defeated by a guerilla army of former subjects. They were worn down enough that they had to hire Hessian mercenaries to pad out their army. That sounds symptomatic of such a thing to me.

Originally posted by CrisMajor
reply to post by Grifter42

 

Germany and Japan were Axis, not Allies.

That's what I was saying. Everybody talks about the Holocaust, and Unit 731, and all those atrocities, but they never talk about the things that go on behind closed doors in the Allied nations, or under the obfuscating veil of the CIA's authority, or so on

Originally posted by CrisMajor
reply to post by Grifter42

 

Lincoln ruled with an iron fist and waged war on fellow Americans? Nah. The southern states seceded and the Union moved to bring them back and it sort of snowballed. But the Irish in the north basically were slaves though. And if I remember correctly, Lincoln actually wanted to send all blacks back to Africa.

Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus and brutally cracked down. He sent the message that the Federal Government wouldn't hestitate in shooting folks down to the ground if they showed resistance to their machinations and grinding spread of federalism.

Originally posted by CrisMajor
reply to post by Grifter42

 

Anyways, what are you alluding to? That the entire western world is a bunch of liars? Because you've said nothing on other countries.

Write on what you know. I'd bet that there's tons of unsavory dealings in African nations, middle eastern, and so on. But I don't know for sure, and I'm not gonna start making things up about them. If someone has a good example from any part of the world of such a thing, they're welcome to share it. But yes, a very high percentage of the representative governments of the western world are a bunch of liars. The Eastern world too.

You folks like Columbus Day? Get a day off work, government holiday! Awesome. Well, what if I told you Christopher Columbus was less of an explorer and more of a genocidal invader, working to pillage and extract as much gold and spices as he cold from the Americas? That he was quite in the vein of other conquistadors.
That he was a villain! A villain with good publicity, mind you, but a villain!

I've grown up hearing both sides to this and frankly. it's an amusing side note but little more than another Bash-The-Americans event to really celebrate with Gusto.

The French, Spanish, British and eventually others were vying for what everyone seemed to know was out here somewhere to find. Could be the Norse to come before left more than rumor that's since been lost to time. If it hadn't been Columbus, it would have been another under a different flag. It's absurd to think otherwise.

As personalities of the day went, he was far from the worst who could have landed with a flag to plant too, all things considered. Of course, we can start looking at all nation's heritage and history to see how they came to have land borders and occupation of ground as they do today. I'll bet FEW nations have happy or proud history's to explain getting from Point A to Point B. It'd be hateful to just slam on OTHER nations for the sheer sake of slamming them though.......funny how it's a world sport against us these days?

Well.. Short score on this one, IMO. Weak and short.

and God flooded the word, for the greater good.

Same with Columbus?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


You're entitled to your opinion. It's not that I'm bashing America, more so that I'm angered by what the government sees fit to put in the text books. Now, the Belgian government has a history of oppression and murder, if you want to talk about that. They shy away from teaching kids about the time old King Leopold had a merry old time in the Congo having people's hands cut off for not meeting their quota.

reply to post by Grifter42


Genocide
Noun
The deliberate killing of a large group of people, esp. those of a particular ethnic group or nation.

You're right in your definition, but I don't believe an occupation and relocation of indigenous people is synonymous with genocide. Yeah, lots of people died, it sucked. But genocide is stretching it a wee bit IMO.

The only thing I can think of off the top of my head of less than cool # done by the US is operation paperclip, and project gladius, which involved hiring ex nazis and then the # they did with that Japanese unit you mentioned. All of which are dumb but still pale in comparison to the actions done by the people themselves. Of course god only knows what kind of f*cked up sh*t went down in the CIA during the Cold War.

As for Lincoln, upholding the law is not pushing federalism. But he was rather hypocritical.

You can find hundreds of lies. Just look at china or NKorea, or Russia or Iran or Egypt or Libya or Israel or Jordan or Iraq. Just about every contry lies. Except for maybe Canada, those guys are pretty nice. It's a little creepy, actually.

reply to post by Grifter42

I rather thought the United States was doing it's duty in public self-flagellation over everything from the treatment of minority belief groups pre-colonial and up to the revolution.... to the horrors and true evils of slavery ... to the 'manifest destiny' that rolled over the top of the Native American people's to populate this land before us? It's all dark history and I've not seen effort to sugar coat it for decades. The land of John Wayne and white hat heroes taught in school or media is long since past.

I guess sometimes I just wonder why, with all the above actually moving from just being covered to being more the FOCUS of our own heritage and historic teaching ...Why we need to find even more to point to and make it all just a hair darker than it already was? It's like a thread yesterday attacking the concept of the U.S. President swearing in on the Bible. This president wasn't even debating whether he WOULD or not ...but that wasn't enough to stop some from gleefully attacking the tradition based on it being tradition at all.

Not everything American is free fire zone for shooting up...and we all DO care about some of our history and culture. Not much....I'll admit..but not ALL of it was endless darkness, despite the onslaught these days to suggest otherwise.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


There are some people in American history I do respect. It's not all dead indians and sadness. George Washington was an honorable man, and a lynchpin on how this country was going to have it's leaders. If he had gone the other way, we would have had a leader essentially a king, but he was true to his word and allowed someone else to be appointed. He was no Caesar.

I find a lot of the historical figures of the uncivil war to be tragic figures. Now there's huge white washed portions of that war that people gloss over. Robert E. Lee was a far better man morally, physically, and intellectually than Ulysses S. Grant ever was. Grant was an alcoholic, and a wastrel. And Jefferson Davis was a man who considered the consequences of his actions, and fought for a cause worth fighting for. He was like a second George Washington.

If the circumstances were reversed, I'd have much preferred a Jefferson Davis presidency, then followed by a Robert E. Lee presidency than the presidency of Lincoln and Grant. But I digress.

reply to post by Grifter42

You folks like Columbus Day? Get a day off work, government holiday! Awesome. Well, what if I told you Christopher Columbus was less of an explorer and more of a genocidal invader, working to pillage and extract as much gold and spices as he cold from the Americas? That he was quite in the vein of other conquistadors. That he was a villain! A villain with good publicity, mind you, but a villain!

Yup. It's absolutely disgusting this man is honored in any shape or form. He was evil.....on the same level as Hitler.

reply to post by Grifter42

It's not all dead indians and sadness. George Washington was an honorable man,

The same George Washington that signed the first "federal reserve" into law?

The First Bank of the United States was a central bank, chartered for a term of twenty years, by the United States Congress on February 25, 1791. Establishment of the Bank was included in a three-part expansion of federal fiscal and monetary power (along with a federal mint and excise taxes) championed by Alexander Hamilton, first Secretary of the Treasury. Hamilton believed a central bank was necessary to stabilize and improve the nation's credit, and to improve handling of the financial business of the United States government under the newly enacted Constitution.

en.wikipedia.org...


The same George Washington that sympathized with bankers after he became president?

The Whiskey Rebellion, or Whiskey Insurrection, was a tax protest in the United States beginning in 1791, during the presidency of George Washington. Farmers who used their leftover grain and corn in the form of whiskey as a medium of exchange were forced to pay a new tax. The tax was a part of treasury secretary Alexander Hamilton's program to increase central government power, in particular to fund his policy of assuming the war debt of those states which had failed to pay. The farmers who resisted, many war veterans, were fighting for the principles of the American Revolution, in particular against taxation without local representation.

en.wikipedia.org...

Plus he owned hundreds of slaves and abused them.......

If you think he was honorable then you must have love Obama. Both were/are bankers puppets.

All govt's whitewash their history. To think otherwise is woefully naive. Like the atrocities the British Empire inflicted on the Scots, Irish, Africans, East Indians, etc..... Or how some govt tyrants have declared that "time begins now!" and set in motion the act of killing off everyone over a certain age in order to wipe the past from the collective memory.

So, what's your point?
That historically, governments try to put the best spin on what they do?

That has happened in the past, is happening now, and will happen in the future. THAT is what should be taught in school IMO. That what you read in this book is one side of the story....and there are other sides worth researching. But, if you go to a public school, funded by the government, then you will be taught what the government wants.....after all, THEY are paying for it (even though in many countries, that $$ comes from the taxpayers).

reply to post by CrisMajor

Genocide
Noun
The deliberate killing of a large group of people, esp. those of a particular ethnic group or nation.

You're right in your definition, but I don't believe an occupation and relocation of indigenous people is synonymous with genocide. Yeah, lots of people died, it sucked. But genocide is stretching it a wee bit IMO.

Native Americans were killed off due to the fact that they were Natives... Why isn't that genocide?

Massacres of Native Americans

en.wikipedia.org...

American Indian Wars

en.wikipedia.org...

Indian Removal Act

en.wikipedia.org...

Eventually the Indians returned to their designated reservations. Sheridan's department conducted the Red River War, the Ute War, and the Great Sioux War of 1876-77, which resulted in the death of a trusted subordinate, Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer. The Indian raids subsided during the 1870s and were almost over by the early 1880s, as Sheridan became the commanding general of the U.S. Army.[44]

Comanche Chief Tosawi reputedly told Sheridan in 1869, "Me Tosawi. Me good Indian," to which Sheridan supposedly replied, "The only good Indians I ever saw were dead." This may have then been paraphrased as "The only good Indian is a dead Indian." Sheridan denied he had made the statement. This sentiment was widely held and expressed by others, notably in 1869 when Rep. James M. Cavanaugh said in Congress, "I have never seen in my life a good Indian ... except when I have seen a dead Indian."

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Grifter42
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

There are some people in American history I do respect. It's not all dead indians and sadness. George Washington was an honorable man, and a lynchpin on how this country was going to have it's leaders. If he had gone the other way, we would have had a leader essentially a king, but he was true to his word and allowed someone else to be appointed. He was no Caesar.

That's the joy of forums here... I just never know how it's going to go. Now you really surprise me and perhaps I was a bit hasty in assimptions of my own by thinking your views about Columbus were indicative of a general dislike of most/all things culturally American. You might have noticed some of that... lol.. People comparing Columbus to Hitler and stuff.

George Washington was one of a kind wasn't he? He could have easily been King George the 1st and the kicker of course, was so many wanted to make him that outright. It took one hell of a man to say no....he was done..and walk from the reigns of power by choice. It set the example that's held to this day, anyway.

I find a lot of the historical figures of the uncivil war to be tragic figures. Now there's huge white washed portions of that war that people gloss over. Robert E. Lee was a far better man morally, physically, and intellectually than Ulysses S. Grant ever was. Grant was an alcoholic, and a wastrel. And Jefferson Davis was a man who considered the consequences of his actions, and fought for a cause worth fighting for. He was like a second George Washington.

This is getting to be a really interesting conversation. You're obviously well read on at least some of this as those little details sure are among the 'trivia' deemed too unimportant to trouble kids with learning these days. It is ironic though, that Robert E. Lee is seen as a traitor by many and leader of a break away failure by most while Grant was made President eventually and Lincoln is almost canonized for Sainthood. I do wonder sometimes if things may not have been better if the war had gone the other way.

Contrary to the myths, as I'm sure you'll agree, Slavery wasn't the cause anyway....as Northern Generals, let alone common people DID have slaves in Union territory right to the end of the fighting. So much for hard core principles and politics never much changes, does it? The normal people die so the Politicians can make points.

If the circumstances were reversed, I'd have much preferred a Jefferson Davis presidency, then followed by a Robert E. Lee presidency than the presidency of Lincoln and Grant. But I digress.

The South had it's problems to be sure...and they did have a rather disturbing idea of human worth vs. their labor intensive crops like cotton .....but prison labor abuses in later years showed that wasn't racial as much as just a low respect for anything exploitable by some. I have to agree I wonder at times how it might have been if two nations had formed where one had started. It may have come out better....we'll never know.

I thought this thread would be more about politically motivated lies/omissions so i thought i would throw one in that i have yet to find anyone that knows about it. What we are taught is not the truth in any event.

The Civil Rights Act of 1875 (18 Stat. 335-337),[2] sometimes called Enforcement Act or Force Act, was a United States federal law enacted during the Reconstruction Era that guaranteed African Americans equal treatment in public accommodations, public transportation, and prohibited exclusion from jury service. The Supreme Court decided the act was unconstitutional in 1883.

Written by 2 Republicans in 1870 and passed in 1875. Ignored until JFK beefed it up and forced LBJ to push it through Congress. Culminating in JFK's death more than likely. LBJ ( The most racist POTUS in American history) got the credit for it and threw in entitlements to enslave the black community to the Democrat party forever. Sad sad sad.. Al Gore sr. was filibustering the bill when JFK was killed.

reply to post by jimmiec


Is that supposed to be a post to make the republican party look good?

The republicans back then were nothing like they are now, the same with the democrats.