How much of the History you are taught do you believe?

[Stravinsk]

It does sound rather like a news update from George Orwell's "1984", along with concepts like "he who controls the past controls the future, he who controls the present controls the past".

How much of the history that you were taught do you believe to be true? Obviously this is a very broad topic that could cover anything from recent events, to events several years back, to events hundreds of years or more back.

I've always been a curious person but often reverted to "mainstream thought" on various subjects when I deemed it in my (social) interest to do so. After several life changing events and realizations, I decided this was cowardice and not in my real interest as a free thinking individual. I prefer an evidence based approach, without conflicts of interest (financial or otherwise) that can show a unified picture or view based on that available evidence, without any of it being hidden.

This is the opposite of easy when it comes to social interactions, most especially so on sensitive material and the conclusions arrived at are at odds with. For example, I knew the official story of 9/11 was a fraud in 2003 and spoke about it on the net, but was mostly met with scorn and ridicule. I would say the situation today is similar in many circles but since the event is more distant in our history now there are more that are both willing to research and come out in public with conclusions that are at odds with the official narrative. Depends on the circles.

Recently I came across a documentary that, if true, is mind boggling. Now I can't say I believe it, but because I am drawn to an evidence based approach I found what was presented as extremely interesting, even if I'm unsure I could draw the same sweeping conclusion the documentary came to. The time in question is the so called "Dark Ages" - a period spanning around 13 or so centuries, the object of inquiry the Cathedrals(a very in depth look into the architecture thereof), and the conclusion so wild and so contrary I'm not sure I can even now utter it without opening myself up to ridicule. But I'll do it. The period is "dark" and "generally unremarkable" save for some mundane and rather dry history of empires slowly falling and religions rising. At least that is what we are taught to think, and the conclusion (of the documentary, not necessarily mine) is that a very enlightened and advanced civilization existed during at least part of this time that is/was deliberately hidden from future generations through historical revision. Do I believe that? Conclusively, no. Possible, maybe.

 

[Lamb]

I was told in high school that when invaders went into a country, or new politicians took over a country that they would rewrite the history books to make them look like the good guys. Not sure how true that is but it sounds about right.

 

[Fritz Kobus]

You might like this video in the Question the Narrative series. More of the series on her channel.

 

[Andrew]

How much of the history that you were taught do you believe to be true? Obviously this is a very broad topic that could cover anything from recent events, to events several years back, to events hundreds of years or more back.

I've always been a curious person but often reverted to "mainstream thought" on various subjects when I deemed it in my (social) interest to do so. After several life changing events and realizations, I decided this was cowardice and not in my real interest as a free thinking individual. I prefer an evidence based approach, without conflicts of interest (financial or otherwise) that can show a unified picture or view based on that available evidence, without any of it being hidden.

This is the opposite of easy when it comes to social interactions, most especially so on sensitive material and the conclusions arrived at are at odds with. For example, I knew the official story of 9/11 was a fraud in 2003 and spoke about it on the net, but was mostly met with scorn and ridicule. I would say the situation today is similar in many circles but since the event is more distant in our history now there are more that are both willing to research and come out in public with conclusions that are at odds with the official narrative. Depends on the circles.

Recently I came across a documentary that, if true, is mind boggling. Now I can't say I believe it, but because I am drawn to an evidence based approach I found what was presented as extremely interesting, even if I'm unsure I could draw the same sweeping conclusion the documentary came to. The time in question is the so called "Dark Ages" - a period spanning around 13 or so centuries, the object of inquiry the Cathedrals(a very in depth look into the architecture thereof), and the conclusion so wild and so contrary I'm not sure I can even now utter it without opening myself up to ridicule. But I'll do it. The period is "dark" and "generally unremarkable" save for some mundane and rather dry history of empires slowly falling and religions rising. At least that is what we are taught to think, and the conclusion (of the documentary, not necessarily mine) is that a very enlightened and advanced civilization existed during at least part of this time that is/was deliberately hidden from future generations through historical revision. Do I believe that? Conclusively, no. Possible, maybe.

Tartarians?

 

[tango]

I was told in high school that when invaders went into a country, or new politicians took over a country that they would rewrite the history books to make them look like the good guys. Not sure how true that is but it sounds about right.

He who controls the past controls the future.
He who controls the present controls the past.

- George Orwell, 1984

 

[Stravinsk]

Tartarians?

I have looked briefly into this, I simply don't know. What did get my interest was a doco I saw that spent some time on the elaborate architecture used in older buildings - like cathedrals. There are forms used today in electronics for energy resonance and magnification. Similar forms are found in many ancient buildings, on a much larger scale. It was argued that later generations installed windows to block the energy, and artwork to make it religiously affiliated (or perhaps solely affiliated) rather than having another (or other) purpose(s).

 

[tango]

It is curious to see how ancient civilizations were able to build things like the pyramids, Stonehenge etc. It's easy enough to argue that you can do anything if you've got 20,000 slaves and a load of log rollers lying around idle but even that doesn't really explain the levels of precision and that's before even considering the question of how to carry individual stones that weigh many tons hundreds of miles.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

One example I can think of is regarding Indigenous (Native American) history. It's all packaged very nicely as a story of Columbus the Benevolent and everyone hanging out eating turkey, buying and selling, and living alongside one another until them Indians got all crazy and started scalping everyone so they had to be 'subdued'. Cool story, but untrue. Indigenous peoples weere lied to, had agreements and treaties broken, were betrayed when they got in the way of financial interests of colonizers. I read one "history" book that tried to portray this history as not as bad as it's made out, that there was much more cooperation than disagrement, yadda-yadda... Not so.
Canada engaged in coordinated genocide tactics regarding Indigenous persons, removing children from their families and reserves to place them in 'Residential Schools' run by the Catholic and Anglican churches, enforced by the RCMP and government agents. While there, these children could not speak their own language, wear traditional clothing, or practice their own ceremonies. Some who attended these schools are still learing their own traditional ways of life. They suffered many abuses while there.

I always find it funny/ironic that I learned more from an Iron Maiden song (Run to the Hills) about how Indigenous peoples were treated than I ever did from any history book in school

 

[Andrew]

It is curious to see how ancient civilizations were able to build things like the pyramids, Stonehenge etc. It's easy enough to argue that you can do anything if you've got 20,000 slaves and a load of log rollers lying around idle but even that doesn't really explain the levels of precision and that's before even considering the question of how to carry individual stones that weigh many tons hundreds of miles.

I don't believe there was a dumb caveman era, there was this traveling journalist who mentioned something about being in a deep jungle and seeing a bird build a nest out of stone by rubbing a certain type of leaf on it, did this repeatedly until the stone was softened into clay and created a shallow hole for nesting

 

[Fritz Kobus]

I recently read this book. Seems to give a balanced view of the whole Columbus and the New World story. Summary at this link:

Columbus and the Crisis of the West

www.sophiainstitute.com

Yet you won’t find here a full-throated defense of Christopher Columbus. Rather, Dr. Royal examines what actually happened in the decades following 1492, when two widely divergent cultures met and mingled. Refusing to ignore or underplay the tragedies of America’s origins, Royal masterfully places these events in historical context, protecting them from the contemporary biases that are moving forward at ramming speed to crush fragile truths.