Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A greater concern should be that the "civics and history" that are being taught, are consistent with historical facts, than with political correctness. Seems like much of history (like today's news) is re-written or 'spun' to suit modern preferences and perspectives.
I'm not sure you understand how "history" works.
"History" is not some sacrosanct paragon of accuracy as it has often been portrayed. Let's take for example a Civil War battle...doesn't matter which one...let's just say the Battle Of Antietam. The first reports out of that battle to reach the public were newspaper stories. So if there's one reporter from Boston there, and one reporter from Savannah there, do you really think they'll write the same story? After a few days the official government reports will come out about how many soldiers on the other side were killed or wounded. Do you really think those reports are accurate? And within a week revisionism begins of stories that were not accurate to begin with. Perspective always reports history.
"History" is not some sacrosanct paragon of accuracy as it has often been portrayed. Let's take for example a Civil War battle...doesn't matter which one...let's just say the Battle Of Antietam. The first reports out of that battle to reach the public were newspaper stories. So if there's one reporter from Boston there, and one reporter from Savannah there, do you really think they'll write the same story? After a few days the official government reports will come out about how many soldiers on the other side were killed or wounded. Do you really think those reports are accurate? And within a week revisionism begins of stories that were not accurate to begin with. Perspective always reports history.
Hence the problem with textbook war history, it is almost always written by the winning side.
Of the dozens of WW2 documentaries I have seen, only 1 was produced by an Axis participant.
Hence the problem with textbook war history, it is almost always written by the winning side.
Of the dozens of WW2 documentaries I have seen, only 1 was produced by an Axis participant.
Exactly. History is never accurate, although admittedly with video in the modern age, some of it gets a little more difficult to fudge.
The other issue I forgot to mention is that some "history" gets revised when new data becomes available. And we do learn more about events far back in history than many people realize.
"History" is not some sacrosanct paragon of accuracy as it has often been portrayed. Let's take for example a Civil War battle...doesn't matter which one...let's just say the Battle Of Antietam. The first reports out of that battle to reach the public were newspaper stories. So if there's one reporter from Boston there, and one reporter from Savannah there, do you really think they'll write the same story? After a few days the official government reports will come out about how many soldiers on the other side were killed or wounded. Do you really think those reports are accurate? And within a week revisionism begins of stories that were not accurate to begin with. Perspective always reports history.
At a distance, much of 'history' is probably somewhat distorted. But, time, distance and multiple sources of literary, archaeological, scientific and other evidence, actually add a fact-based clarity to distant, emotionally laden historical events.
Today's politically correct crowd seems intent on twisting historical facts to fit a modern, PC narrative (for example, tearing-down civil war statues and monuments as though that part of history never existed; or claiming the WW ll Jewish holocaust never occurred; or injecting today's LBGT agenda into historical events). History (and history books) are not being changed or distorted by those who reported historical events, but, by those attempting to change the past to suit a 'modern PC agenda.'
The evolution of this phenomenon can be vividly seen in today's "news reporting" which is molded to sell advertising 24/7. This morphs facts, truth and news into a, "here's the opinion of everyone who thinks like we think, about what happened ... let's not confuse things with facts."
No prior generation has ever had access to today's vast communication and social networks. Many irresponsibly abuse these newly available communications to hide and obscure facts and truth ... behind a layer of PC opinion -- This elevates what people think about what happened above any effort to actually report or validate truth, facts or news. Who knows how/what the future will report about today's "history," but, I'll bet there will be a much stronger effort to distinguish between opinions and facts, than evident in today's "news."
At a distance, much of 'history' is probably somewhat distorted. But, time, distance and multiple sources of literary, archaeological, scientific and other evidence, actually add a fact-based clarity to distant, emotionally laden historical events.
Today's politically correct crowd seems intent on twisting historical facts to fit a modern, PC narrative (for example, tearing-down civil war statues and monuments as though that part of history never existed; or claiming the WW ll Jewish holocaust never occurred; or injecting today's LBGT agenda into historical events). History (and history books) are not being changed or distorted by those who reported historical events, but, by those attempting to change the past to suit a 'modern PC agenda.'
The evolution of this phenomenon can be vividly seen in today's "news reporting" which is molded to sell advertising 24/7. This morphs facts, truth and news into a, "here's the opinion of everyone who thinks like we think, about what happened ... let's not confuse things with facts."
No prior generation has ever had access to today's vast communication and social networks. Many irresponsibly abuse these newly available communications to hide and obscure facts and truth ... behind a layer of PC opinion -- This elevates what people think about what happened above any effort to actually report or validate truth, facts or news. Who knows how/what the future will report about today's "history," but, I'll bet there will be a much stronger effort to distinguish between opinions and facts, than evident in today's "news."
I'd say it's the anti-PC crowd that consistently does that.
The evolution of this phenomenon can be vividly seen in today's "news reporting" which is molded to sell advertising 24/7. This morphs facts, truth and news into a, "here's the opinion of everyone who thinks like we think, about what happened ... let's not confuse things with facts."
This says it perfectly!
Its also how they condition and brainwash the public in tv shows and movies...heres how everyone else acts, heres whats 'normal' and whats not, here are the things you should believe, here are the things you should want, etc etc.
This tactic is extremely powerful and effective if used slowly and methodically enough, I believe they could 'condition' a majority of people in whatever way they wanted and it would be successful.
I just gotta shake my head with bias. Both sides can be and should be accused of bias with the media and how history is taught. Both sides are guilty for trying to sway history their way.
In regards to the removal of the Confederate artifacts, honestly there are two places for them: museums and history books. We don't need Robert E. Lee schools in say Arizona. Mainly because his battles were not this west, it was other Confederate military leaders...
Thread closed as the discussion no longer follows the debate in the OP.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
