What accepted history is just blatantly false?

Which events that have become accepted history were fabricated, never happened, attributed to the wrong individual or were just plain lies?

I'll start. John Cabot never crossed the Atlantic in 1497, and never discovered Newfoundland. The whole escapade was fabricated so that the English crown could lay legal claim to the territory. In reality, English fishermen had been visiting the Grand Banks for years.

Now, get out there, and get controversial.

I hear freepers refer to it here at work all the time.

http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue5_10/wiggins/
"...I've traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.."
- - - - - -
Clearly, he's talking about legislation. But fueled by the media, the fabricated "I invented the Internet" lie caught on and stuck.

did not start when two opposing scouts were in town looking for shoes.

But I like it. Makes a good story.

That was a story invented by her detractors to discredit her.

George W Bush* elected president of the USA.

and "under god" was always in the pledge

columbus called them "ninos en dios" children of god. india wasn't even named india in 1492. there is a lot more b.s in the whole columbus story.
"lies my teacher told me" is one of my favortie books ever.
here's the authors home page.

http://www.uvm.edu/~jloewen/

and their argument looks fairly convincing to me.

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mgenteindios.html

Which means the indiginous. That got bastardized to Indians.

The straight dope has direct quotes of letters from his own hand, and none of them use the word indiginos....

bow to the stragiht dope.

What did he call them in Spanish? Indiginos is a Spanish word that means indiginous. It can EASILY be mistranslated as Indians.

http://ensayo.rom.uga.edu/antologia/XV/colon/

as the Straight Dope page says. And no use of "indiginos" (though he may have used that later, of course).

Are in Spanish. No use of indiginos, only of indios.

I found it interesting that Helen Keller apparently fought for socialism her entire life. No one ever mentioned that to me as a kid.

It gets overlooked for Zinn's "People's History...", but imo it's every bit as good. ;)

John Hanson was. And I believe there were another seven or so before Washington.

actually presidents of the Colonial States of America? (pre-constitution)

So... not exactly a president as a modern observor would see it, but called president nonetheless.

Under the Articles of Confederation.

I didn't think it was called the Colonial States of America, though.

... you could say that John Hanson was the first person to be named 'President of the United States (In Congress Assembled)'... but under the Articles of Confederation, each of the 13 colonies were independent nations... the Articles created a league of friendship, vaguely similar to today's European Union... with all that said, John Hanson is far from being an insignificant figure in American History... read this article...

http://www.snopes.com/history/american/hanson.htm

Was actually staged a day later for the benefit of the press.

Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong
Lies Across America : What Our Historic Sites Get Wrong
by James W. Loewen

were the first people in the Americas. There appears to be, through genes, fossils, and language at least four or more distinct migrations both pre and post Ice Age from Asia in the Americas, and modern Native Americans appear to have arrived in waves 2-4. The first wave of migrants may have been closest to modern Ainu of northern Japan (based on fossils), and were either displaced southward, murdered, or conquered by the subsequent waves of "mongoloid" Native Americans.

The Second Continental Congress adopted, after a long difficult battle, Virginia's Resolution on Independence on July 2nd, 1776. That night, John Adams wrote in a letter to his wife that from that day forth, the 2nd of July would be celebrated with fireworks, speeches, parades, games, and feasts as the day America gained its independence. On the 4th, Congress voted to adopt the final draft of the Declaration, which was sent out to the printer, and also a local calligrapher. It was this version, written in calligraphic longhand,which John Hancock signed on the 9th of July, not the 4th. Other members of Congress signed later in July or in the month of August. A few did not get around to signing it until 1783, after the war was over.

Nor did he discover the Bahamas...all he did was land there.

Chinese, Vikings, Egyptians, Perhaps even the Jews (Mormons believe this)

And Newfoundland was a fishing destination for English fisherman for years before America was *discovered*.

NEW!
Cleveland Free Times
http://www.freetimes.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1195

It's one of those lies the right-wing loves to repeat.

He was trying to find slave labor.

slave labor could be considerd a "fountain of youth" for the masters!

He was selected by 5 folks on the SCOTUS - not by the will of the people

The Soviet Union was a rotten state that was barely able to keep itself together post-WWII. It was in no position to wage offensive warfare, from an internal, economic and logistic point of view.

walked on water,
made the blind man see

created the earth in 8 days

prove they never happened. I bet you can't.

.... I bet you can't.

I dare ya. C'mon.

prove the tooth fairy didn't leave a dime under my pillow last night.
"I dare ya. C'mon."

I visited the Galilee when I went to Israel. A woman on a Kibbutz I stayed at on the shores of the Lake told me that in the summer, the level of the water goes down very far, and there are points where there is only about an inch or so of water for several tens of feet into the water. She suspected Jesus just walked in shallow water.

c'mon, you're missing the point. This is mythology, and what's important is what you think of Yeshua bin Miriam's teachings - whatever of them may or may not have survived. Or Paul's writings - the miracles are a sideshow.

My own tastes run to the Old Man, by the way.

Love your "Angel" related name!

I miss Groo.

Russia was collapsing without help from the USA, and we're collapsing
similarly these days.... This mistaken "winning" the cold war
thinking has lead the US to act in imperial ways far beyond its real
capability... and why we are in a military shit right now overdeployed
and unprepared for a serious military opponent.

Also, TOTO is a black dog in the book wizard of oz... a scottie like
black dog. That's a serious anomaly, eh? ;-)

That must mean something on a symbolic level, eh?

Page 6:

"...Toto was not grey; he was a little black dog, with long silky
hair and small black eyes...."

That is a scottie, and not a cairn. The world has been corrupted!!!

is a black dog in the movie- a cairn terrier, a pretty scottie like (closely related, also terrier) dog.
hardly blatantly false.

The illustrations in the book look like scotties, not cairn's.

You don't realize how this has affected the entire world's history
since the film was made, and likely, had they used a scottie,
bush would not have won in 2000.

;-)

true, they are not scotties. but they come in black and brown. the quote from the book does not say it is a scottie. the universe is intact as far as i am concerned.
http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/cairnterrier.htm

edited to add link.

and the book says there is no grey!!! Your link says "blackish"
and shows a photo of a grey/black (brindle).

The sky is falling!!!!! oh my, the world is ending.

Here is a photo of my boy, taken recently on the top of a mountain
near here: (note the BLACK!!)
?ch=71

:-)

Because i like dogs, i'm willing to let it slide, but geez, the
historical precedents are deeply scarred by this!! ;-)

Maybe somebody mentioned that. I doubt it. ;)

... Hey -- where'd that border come from?

.

The victory, from the american POV, was britain de-legitimizing the
lands east of appalatia as soeverign holdings of the american
indians, and instead, lands for stealing... and the trade was
"that border".

Perhaps you know even better?

We didn't, after all, conquer Canada.

It was more than just a pretext for the war, and it did stop.

Not any credible evidence that he did act alone.

But parroted on every news magazine, making fun of the "Grassy Knoll Society".

:mad:

A mathematical impossibility, for a start.

Actually...

The Japanese government had been trying to surrender for weeks before we dropped atomic bombs on their cities. We wanted to show Stalin we were not be be tangled with.

"We had to nuke Japanese civilians TWICE to save Japanese lives"

The first one is at least borderline explainable. Sort of.

I have always heard we were making an example of Japan, to show the world our power and to force Russia to not conquer them.

American lives.

In an invasion tens of millions of Allied and Japanese soldiers and civilians would have died. I do think that if we had waited a few weeks, we could have avoided using nukes altogether, but at the time, using them was viewed as the smart choice that DID save millions of lives.

Additionally, stories claiming that Japan was about to surrender are a little misleading, as SOME in the Japanese government wanted to surrender, but others were NEVER going to surrender, and there was a power struggle within the government. Had we waited a few more weeks, ya, we might have been able to avoid using nukes, but in the view of the allies, surrender was not something that was actually expected from the Japanese.

and rolling up the japanese army further incorporating the "won"
territory in to russia.

We tested 2 nukes on japan to warn russia. The people we killed were
collateral damage. The failure of history teachers to take in the
greater picture leads to decaptiated history like this crap
about caring about invading japan.

is the question. not eternally debatable.

The russian advance in the east was of far more concern to mcaurthur
and the generals of that time, as by the point of the nukes, japan
was already defeated, and they were looking on to their next
opponent. They wanted russia to halt its advances in the east,
and the nukes worked.

Whilst the civilian debate focuses on the war crime and the deaths
of using those nuclear explosives... the military was busy focusing
on its post-war containment of communism in the far east, with
the subsequent years spent fighting wars up and down east
asia, in this containment exercise, and when macaurthur was finally
put down, he was planning a massive nuclear attack on china.

I'm not saying that the use of nukes was justified, especially the
second one on nagasaki.... or the tokyo firebombing for that matter!

Just to cut history up in to little bits, is such a phenomena of
ignorance, and the history of world war 2 in east asia, should be
better taught as "20th century east asian history" that all the
american attacks and meddling in the far east is seen in one
sweep, rather than singling out japan as the ultimate enemy.

My understanding was that Kim Ilsung had USSR backing for his invasion, and was motivated at least in part by Syngman Rhee's open belligerence.

I agree with your broader sweep approach needed in east asian history - you can't understand the Korean War apart from the russo-japanese war, for example - but your time frame needs to be a little broader. I would start modern East Asian history from the meiji restoration in japan, king kojong in korea, and the old dragon in china - maybe the opium wars. And I still don't understand the Russian role in east asia - when Queen Min was trying to fend off the japanese takeover of korea, she tried getting support from the russians - which would've been the tsar, at that time. and yet foreign relations don't seem to have changed much under stalin.

although I expect the lowered military casualties were considered a good byproduct.

Incidentally, there is a truly perverse argument here for having used the bombs. Had America not dropped the nukes, the Russians probably wouldn't have been in such a hurry to develop nukes of their own. This might have increased the risk of a war between America and Russia in the late 40s because the US would have felt confident of winning a war in which it was the only nuclear power.

Of course this is consequentialist crap, but it brings out exactly how much the existence of nukes has changed our judgement of morality. Once avoiding nuclear war becomes an absolute priority, you can swallow almost any immoral act as being better than armaggedon.

V

For example, the architect of the "conventional" bombing campaign thought the hideously efficacious incendiary bombing of Japanese cities was sufficient to make them surrender. He believed the atomic bombs were unnecessary.

General Curtis E. LeMay was not generally considered one of the doves of the 20th century.

I forget the story exactly as to just what is false, does anyone have a good link? My geography professor in college was gung-ho about tearing down the myth -- apparently he was tossed out of the Alamo shrine once for asking questions!

And the whole Texas Revolution. Many books have been written about those years & you'll find lots of links if you look. It's not a simple story.

The upcoming movie promises to be better than the John Wayne mess--marginally.

I have had trouble finding anything on the Net. Maybe my prof was insane?

Apparently he had various sets of false teeth made from animal tusks, human teeth and other stuff, but no wood.

...

i saw them with my own 2 eyes.

along with throwing a dollar across the Potomac (or Rappahannock). Parson Weems worked overtime as myth-maker of his day. Sort of like Karen Hughes.

we certainly contributed to the defeat of Germany in 1918 but the British Blockade did more to starve Germany than we accomplished on the front. And the Soviets won WW2 if you look at soldiers and tonnage spent on the Eastern front it dwarfs the US contribution.

Germany was already weak in 1918, but it was the addition of fresh US troops that really forced Germany's hand.

And while the Soviets did kill a lot more Germans than we did, they did so with American guns, eating American food, driving American trucks, fueled by American oil. At worst, without the Soviets, we would have won in August, 1945.

The Red Army had about 30.000 most light tanks in 1941, or so poorly maintained that nearly 80% of them were destroyed in the opening phases of the German invasion.The introduction of the T-34's, a serious threat, came as a shock to Germany, who had at that time no tank which could withstand the T-34's armor or its 76mm gun, until the German Panther and Tiger shows up. In later battles, the Russian tanks are almost as good as the Germans but still lack the killing power of the Panther and Tiger. To compensate for it, most battles may have Russian tanks outnumbering the Germans nearly three to one, using the typical Russian tactic of charging forward and attempting to overwhelm. By war's end the Russians produced about 100.000 tanks.

The Russian artillery had large caliber 152mm gun pieces and rockets.In 1944 Russian had ten to one advantage in gun tubes over the Germans, by war's end they produced about 500.000 guns to do bombardments until infantry appears.

http://www.euronet.nl/users/wilfried/ww2/foreword.htm

FM Radios. Russian radios sucked.

Waterproof telephone wire. Russians loved to set up field telephones (because they were always short of radios), and couldn't manufacture waterproof wire in quantity. And, if your wire isn't waterproof, the first time it gets wet, it shorts out.

Trucks. Sure, the Russians built good tanks. But to do so, they had to convert truck factories. American 6x6's and jeeps... (There are Russian history books from the 1950's that claim that there were towns in Siberia that produced trucks named Ford and Willys-Overland!)

100 octane gasoline. Airplane fuel.

Bell P-39 Airacobra. Armed with a 37mm AT gun, the Russian's used them for killing Panthers and Tigers. They called it 'The Can Opener'.

You know what beat the Nazis? Russian manpower, American manufacturing, British determination, and Nazi incompetence.

Anglos were lured to Texas (then part of Mexico) by a promise of land as long as they swore allegiance to Mexico and became Catholic. Neither happened, and then Texas declared independence and joined the US.

General Santa Ana was trying to reclaim their rightful land.

It was kind of amazing, though, that the Texans held up as long as they did.

He was also a dictator, and no hero. He took the handful of survivors (including Davy Crockett) out of the Alamo and killed them. Earlier, he had convinced the defenders at Goliad, under Col. James Fannin, to surrender, under promise of humane treatment. Here is what Santa Anna's word meant. By the way, if I had been Sam Houston when Santa Anna was captured, I would have hanged him. Forget the politics. The man was a war criminal:

At selected spots on each of the three roads, from half to three-fourths of a mile from the presidio, the three groups were halted. The guard on the right of the column of prisoners then countermarched and formed with the guard on the left. At a prearranged moment, or upon a given signal, the guards fired upon the prisoners at a range too close to miss. Nearly all were killed at the first fire. Those not killed were pursued and slaughtered by gunfire, bayonet, or lance. Fannin and some forty (Peña estimated eighty or ninety) wounded Texans unable to march were put to death within the presidio under the direction of Capt. Carolino Huerta of the Tres Villas battalion.

From two groups shot on the river roads, those not instantly killed fled to the woods along the stream, and twenty-four managed to escape. The third group, on the San Patricio road, was farther from cover; only four men from it are known to have escaped. A man-by-man study of Fannin's command indicates that 342 were executed at Goliad on March 27.

Just said that Texas was stolen from the Mexicans. From what I hear, yes Santa Anna was a war criminal.

"declare independence and join the US".

We were an independent country thank you very much.

and not "feminists" as has been constantly bleated over the years.

Mama Cass Elliot died of congestive heart failure - NOT choking on a ham sandwich.

And George Washington didn't cut down a cherry tree and never had to lie about it because it never happened.

George Washington cut down Mama Cass with a Cherry Tree while eating a Ham Sandwich?

eom

... have you ever had to go around the board once before buying property... and never in history have you ever been allowed to put luxury tax money in the middle of the board (it goes to the bank; when a person lands on Free Parking, NOTHING HAPPENS...)

I know that I am going to get flamed... but I have the facts on my side...

http://boardgames.about.com/library/faqs/bl-faq-monopoly.htm

I think the reason that a lot of people play with these rules is because a guy once wrote a book about Monopoly and included these optional rules to 'spice up' the game; needless to say, they became popular!

Everyone I know plays by the free parking jackpot rule. It makes the game more interesting period. I am sure that had the makers of the game thought about a jackpot space, they would have created it, end of story.

The destroyers that N. Vietnam "attacked in international waters" were really on spying missions.

While this is widely known and debated among professional historians, try telling this to the general populace and they will say :wtf:

As hard as it is to believe, the sheeple are STILL in denial about Vietnam, especially its early stages. Recommended reading: Daniel Ellsberg's Secrets, his memoir on the Vietnam debacle.

the protestors forced the military to fight "with one hand behind its back."

That the medieval witches were devil worshippers (they were worshippers of the pre-Christian pagan gods)

That no Germans resisted Hitler (there were 120,000 people in prison for anti-gov. activity when WWII broke out, and Dachau was primarily for political prisoners) and that all the French did (cf. Marcel Ophuls' film The Sorrow and the Pity)

had herbs that could prevent pregnancy and induce abortion. all idiot men fear women who can control fertility, as well they should.

for religious freedom and to escape religious persecution. Actually, they came here so they could freely persecute everyone else!

He didn't do any damn thing that was worthy.

Actually, fragments of either an asteroid or comet collided with Earth in a few places in Wisconsin and Illinois on that night in 1871. Peshtigo, Wisconsin was almost directly hit by a fragment, and as a result, the town was engulfed in flames. Some people in Peshtigo died on impact, others were burned to death trying to escape. Scientists say that the Chicago fragment landed somewhere near present-day Schaumburg, Illinois, and the fire from the impact spread to Chicago overnight.

...destroyed the whole town, and killed far more people than the Chicago fire (3 times as much? I seem to remember that figure).

really interesting all that. just heard that asteroid story the other day. i live in chicago, and was in peshtigo a couple of years ago. they have quite the chip on their shoulder about the whole thing. there were fires in michigan also.

A Roman Catholic Priest wrote a very good account of the fire. According to the priest, the entire area was very dry for some time. The local loggers would burn underbrush to make it easier. One of the fires some miles west of Pestigo got away. The people of Pestigo knew for some hours that something was coming, but did not know the extent of the firestorm.

I very much doubt the direct impact on Pestigo. No craters near town. No airburst pattern on the trees that survived (well, not survived but there was charred husks of tree trunks). No report of explosion. Also, no mention of anything at the Pestigo fire museum.

About the Chicago fire, the fire started SW of the Loop and made its way east and north. The fire stopped somewhere around North Avenue. Schaumburg is about 15 miles or more outside to the northeast of Chicago. The wind was not going in that direct and most of the land between Chicago and Schaumburg was planted. Agricultural fields do not burn at any the rate of forest or city.

Bottom line: The astrological explanation is sexy, but it is just a guess. The extended drought throughout the midwest is more likely one of the proximate causes. Again, when making extraordinary claims, one must have extraordinary proof.

One of the greatest lies of American history.

Idiots like Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, and their ilk keep spreading that lie.

No, he didn't. He was rather ambivelent about slavery, actually.

He may have been ambivalent about black people, but Lincoln certainly opposed slavery. Don't you recall the Lincoln-Douglas Debates? Lincoln most certainly freed the slaves.

Only freed slaves in states in the CSA. Didnt free northern slaves. Lincoln was dead by the time slavery was outlawed.

There were slaves in the four border states controlled by the Union: Maryland, Delaware, Missouri and Kentucky. And they weren't subject to the Emancipation Proclamation. But the overwhelming majority of slaves were not in those four states - they were in the South. And a number of those four states (perhaps all of them, I'm looking for proof) emancipated their slaves before Lincoln died.

To say that Lincoln didn't free the slaves is to hang on a technicality. He wrote the 13th Amendment, pushed it through Congress and then through states. It wasn't fully ratified until after his death, but so what?

Not affected by the Emancipation proclamation.

Missouri Maryland Delaware Kentucky what became West Virginia were Northern slave States.... and yes they _DID_ have slaves that WERE NOT freed by that.

It's just a statement of fact... that is all. Emancipation Proc. was meant to assist the north during war.

I'll go with "Lincoln freed the slaves" as an overall base judgement of history.. but there are still facts involved in that.

compassion, yet many his actions were calculated for effect. Foote calls him one of the two true authentic geniuses brought forth by the Civil War (the other being Nathan Bedford Forrest).

Lincoln did not free the slaves in border states because there was fear that if this were done, those states might then secede from the union.

So, in fact, he freed slaves in the states where the effect would most help the union cause -- in states that were in open rebellion with the United States. Which really didn't actually "free" them per se.

BTW, none of this takes away from Lincoln's greatness in the slightest.

He was ambivalent about equal rights, but not slavery. The Civil War did free the slaves; the Emancipation Proclamation freed them in states still in rebellion, and ultimately freed them all. It was the art of the doable. Every fiber of Lincoln's being opposed slavery; that's what the war was about (sorry, not tariffs). He was slightly smarter than Shrub, too. Here's the conclusion of his Second Inaugural Address. A little better than "Bring 'em on," I would say:
"Fondly do we hope - fervently do we pray - that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited tol shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn by the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said, 'The judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether.'
"With malice toward none; with charity for all, with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan - to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations."

It usually isn't lied about, just ignored. Serially.

My hypothesis as to why is because it was a period of pure capitalism with NO regulation or restraint. Freepers don't want people to know how severe the crashes and depressions were (one was nearly as bad as the Great Depression but almost nobody knows about it). Laborers paid for their attempts to end de facto slavery in the factories with their lives. If you think * and cronies are getting rich off the backs of everyone else, this time period was probably far worse.

Yes, this is a dark period in this country's history that freepers love to ignore. Most probably have no idea.

I read Zinn. My great-grandfather hit the road, became a jobless tramp during one of those 'panics'. But we never hear in your standard histories what was going. "Okay, that's the Civil War - on to WWI! - and by the way, a bunch of suffragettes marched."

and I bought the book. :D

I was fortunate enough to have a teacher who wanted to tell the side of history that most teachers hide from their students--either because of politics or because the students won't "understand."

This teacher (Mr. Sabathne) really did a great job of filling those 50-year holes in my understanding of United States history. Too bad he didn't teach AP European or World History too (my school offered neither).

US history is usually one of the tightest controlled subjects.

My junior year US history book was so bad/freeperized that I refused to read the it. The teacher was one of those old-style, honorable Republican teachers; he kept complaining that the book had too many factual errors. I did an excellent job of defreeperizing the curriculum, through class discussion, that he was forced to teach. During parent-teacher conferences the teacher said that my questions made HIM think, and, by extension, forced him off the ultraconservative curriculum. He had no problem giving me an A. (This was before I was rabidly liberal, btw.)

My AP teacher (senior year) went one step further--to hell with the curriculum! He buys books with his own money (I think) to evade restrictions (although his liberal beliefs are well known). This is where I read Zinn and consolidated my political orientation. Zinn made sense because my mother was getting hit hard by some of the same economic traps he talked about. Read this:

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1296275#1297174>

The books are where the control is because all the publishers are corporatized and they have an agenda to push on the next generation. The teachers have some degree of freedom to ignore the book. Some teachers ignore it outright, others need encouragement from students :D to teach stuff that the book conveniently ignores. There are true freeper teachers out there, but all of mine were in the business, math, and English departments.

Edited for spelling

From the false report that satellite photos showed Iraqi tanks massed at the Kuwaiti border, to the apparent tacit approval of Saddam's invasion of Kuwait by the US government contrary to popular belief, to the phoney incubator story, to the question of whether the US's own special ops started the Kuwait oil fires.

http://www.refusingtokill.net/gulfwarvetssayusstartedoilwellfiresinkuwait.htm

Frankly, i can't explain the causes of world war 1, but the
trite history book version is a bit short.

That assassination only provided an excuse for war. The cauldron bubbled, and then you had WWI.

and the "IWW" ? RichM mentioned this once, and he did not develop
the idea. I think it was something to the tune that the greatest
concern at that time (to wilsonian criminal neoliberalism) was international socialism... and that the war was really one of
repressing these factors.

can't recommend it highly enough.

Also, for fiction "A Soldier in the Great War", Mark Helprin, even though he's a right-winger - he's a marvelous writer and his politics don't really come through.

Nah. I won't go there. People couldn't handle it.

Did you know a man named Jesus? So I guess you can prove to me he wasn't the son of God? Thanks man for clearing that up.

Buddhist monk. They compared the tales of Buddha and Christ and revealed startling similarities. A few similarities is plausible, but there were ALOT. The book went into great detail, and seemed credible. Now if only I could read ancient manuscripts I could verify their primary sources.

Thanks for the reccomnedation. I consider myself a pretty spritual person, but not very religous. Thanks again.

I'm a martial artist, mid-level black belt in a couple of Korean styles. A few years ago I hooked up with a sparring partner who was trained in an Okinawan style, also mid-level black belt. One day we were warming up before sparring by running through our kata - patterned movements. At one point I looked over at her, and she was doing damn near the same pattern I was - including a peculiar block called a Diamond block in Korea. I stopped, she stopped, & we compared notes - it was very close to the same kata, and both kata are several hundred years old (for you marital artists, the korean kata was Tae Pek). Korean and Okinawa are a long way apart even today. Hundreds of years ago, that's a whole lot of travel. Only explanation we could come up with is that both styles have a history of having learned from Bodhidharma. May or may not have been him in person, might've been some traveling training sargeant types, who knows. But these things, these cultural exchanges across vast distances, do and did occur.

sheeesh!

Great guy. His wife made me 'arros con pollo' last week. His dad is named Gustavo... but I can't PROOVE he isn't the son of God.

I'll have to ask him the next time we play soccer.

;)

That's the history that never happened. But you're right. If he never was, he never was a white man. ;)

:smoke: Didn't want to hurt nobody's feelings too bad.

It's not that I want to hurt anyone's feelings, it's that I find it such a challenge to even be heard saying this.

here anymore.

:D The only reason I'm reading these is because I keep checking my replies. ;)

religion", I wouldn't look like a nice guy. Most times I can't resist but I'm getting better at it. Come on admit it. You know it's hard not to. I usually just wince and let it go. And I have to do that around family members.

:toast:

I know exactly what you mean. But you know they want to get into it to! ;)

he was a good friend of mine.

The "right" they were after was the "right" to treat human beings like farm animals.

The South weren't fighting to keep their slaves, just for the right to - whatever.

his name was Giovanni Caboto, anglicized to John Cabot and sailed for England.

Marie Antoinette never said "let them eat cake." She wasn't as mean as people think. This is said by biographer Lady Antonia Fraser and historians.

was that she was told that the folk were rioting because they had no bread, and that she ordered her cook to give them her food... "Let them eat cakes"

from my professor of French Literature at the University of California years ago, was that she actually DID say that. But she was referring to something called <<pain gateau>> (bread cake) which was a cheaper type of bread, and not cake itself.

he was Robin of Loxley, which is a district of Sheffield. Little John is buried in Hathersage, just outside Sheffield. Robin Hood didn't live anywhere near Nottingham.

And that he cut government spending.

Even if the general public does. Great example, though!

and are good, fiscally responsible caretakers of public funds.

to Christianity. He was looking for a universal religion to unite his empire and at Nicea the details were hammered out.

Constantine remained loyal to his religion of Sol Invictus until his deathbed, when he was too weak to resist, he was baptized. He picked the cross as the symbol because he has a vision of it over the sun. Christians up to that time used the Chi-rho or the fish as their symbol (and the cross as a reminder of Christ's suffering would have been considered inappropriate)

because he was preparing for battle at the Milvian Bridge and dreamed that if he followed a Christian standard into battle he'd win. He did, and did, thus the empire was "converted".

Interesting bit about Nicea though. I will have to read up on it.

Thanks :)

Constantine's vision (some say it was a dream) was he saw a cross over the sun and the words "By This Conquer". The cross was not a Christian symbol at the time and any vision involving the sun would be a powerful vision in the Sol Invictus cult.

This site (the original is mystriously gone) gives some interesting history of Nicea.

http://northernway.org/pagandna.html

They are obviously contructs of Godless liberals. Repent ye sinners! The Kingdom is at hand!

Mmm. Applebees.

Welcome to DU Rev Jerry!

HAHAHAHAHA! Welcome to DU. :toast:

The Chicago Fire. I recently read about research that has conslusively shown that the fire was in fact started by meteorites falling to earth! In fact, a whole series of fires in Illinois and points north broke out at the same time and caused some 4000 deaths, but the other fires have rarely been connected to the Chicago fire. So it wasn't Mrs. O'Leary's poor cow, however in hell that myth got started. Space junk did it to Chicago.

Dirk

(Edit: oops, I see someone else beat me to it on this one. Still think it's fascinating!)

It was about rich, white men in one part of the counrty using poor men to fight the rich, white men in the other part.

Lots of rich white men in American history. We don't fight a Civil War every generation. Please share with us your wisdom on the subject, and back up your assertion that the Civil War was not about slavery. Tariffs? That's the FReeper assertion. Lincoln freeing the slaves? More complicated. If you want, we can get into it.

The Spanish actually won because they chose democracy, and kicked out the sucker that got them involved against their collective will in the Iraq War.

So, where'd he stash them? Eh? Eh?

oh yeah!

They considered certian human beings property. That's fucked. Slaveowner on the 1$ bill? Fucked.

Sure they wrote a document that servers as the bassi for current democracy, but I could say I am the most important person in the world and it wouldn't be true.

tolerating homosexuals.

The cities, as said in the Bible, were destroyed because the inhabitants were selfish and greedy. (in those days, when people lived in scarce towns, people were supposed to be friendly and helpful. Those in S&G were cruel, unkind, and didn't help travellers/visitors.)

The cities, according to science, were too close to a volcanic area; its eruption spewed out and destroyed everything.

Personally, I like the original Bible verse the best. What's said of S&G applies, frightningly so, to the USA circa 2004. Selfishness and greed are quite rampant.

No evidence of this was ever turned up.