It dawned on me this morning whilst persusing the bbc website for the world news quite how ignorant i am to some aspects of my countries history and that of the world in general.

The article which provoked such though was this :-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3466233.stm

I really had no idea about it. It is when major events such as as a world war have taken place that detail is lost in the over simplification of what happened.

I use this only as an example of the gaping holes in my history... the following extracts were taken from the this article ...

As Czechoslovakia was liberated from the Nazis at the end of World War II, the population of the country took its revenge - not on the Nazis themselves, but on three million of their fellow citizens

But as the Nazis were driven out of Czechoslovakia, it was open season on Germans - any Germans.

Among those caught up in the violence that followed was a 15-year-old ethnic German Czech girl, Ingeborg Neumeyer.

In the middle of the night, she and her family were evicted from their apartment in the city of Brno and sent on a death march.

"We had no water, no food, and we were constantly forced on with whips and rifle butts. We were told to walk faster, faster. If somebody collapsed, they were shot or beaten with rifle butts. In the ditches by the roadside we could see many dead bodies.................

Across Czechoslovakia, thousands of ethnic Germans were murdered, raped and tortured, in the so-called "wild expulsions".

According to Czech military historian Frantisek Hanzlik, the wild expulsions were in fact carried out on the basis of a government programme, and there was an official cover-up afterwards....

Agreed at Potsdam, this act of ethnic cleansing was openly sanctioned by Churchill, Stalin and Truman.

It may be too late to right the historic wrongs, but it is never too late to remember one of Europe's less honourable episodes.

and how are we supposed to do this when it is all being left and fogotten by the newer generations. i do nto think i speak for myself when i say this but a need to understand where we come from can only help to better undersdtand where we are going ?

Thoughts ... ?

this was the sudetenland
the bit that the germans invaded at the start of the second world war (or before the war, depending on how you look at it)
mostly german speaking, the Nazis 'reclaimed' it. previously it was part of the larger austro-hungarian empire.
obviously afterwards the 'czechoslovakians' took it
this what happens when new borders and new countries are drawn up. People aren't as easy to categorise as lines on a map.

another note:
how many people know about this incident in 1919
http://gdl.cdlr.strath.ac.uk/redclyde/rceve14.htm
http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/sr237/sherry.htm

when striking workers massed in glasgows george square and fought off police baton charges, the government sent troops and tanks from england (fearing the local army units might side with their countrymen) to quell what they feared was a possible revolution.
Men recently returned from Flanders and the Somme faced with their comrades turning the tanks on them

and how are we supposed to do this when it is all being left and fogotten by the newer generations. i do nto think i speak for myself when i say this but a need to understand where we come from can only help to better undersdtand where we are going ?

Couldn't agree more Fireboy, well spotted sir.

B.O.B'd

cor_innit spouted:

Couldn't agree more Fireboy, well spotted sir.

Excellent post.

Trouble with history is, there's so much of it!

The other big problem is, that a lot of what we read or are taught, is not accurate. Often historical events are coloured to suit the politics of those telling the story or writing the book. And some of the older stuff is just plain made-up.

An example.
Does anyone know how many of the signatories on the declaration of independance were, at the time of signing, slave owners?

i'm sure well 3/4 of them. I don't know this for fact, i just know it was such a common 'normal' practice at that time, i would'nt be suprised. it's interresting, though, did such deplorable beliefs inhibit writing a great document of human rights? o the irony.

Abraham Lincoln spouted:
I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races--that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which will ever forbid the two races living together in terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior. I am as much as any other man in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.
...notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence--the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas that he is not my equal in many respects, certainly not in color--perhaps not in intellectual and moral endowments; but in the right to eat bread without leave of anybody else which his own hand earns (the Republican version of what the other rights amount to?), he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas and the equal of every other man.

I remember when I was doing History for my Junior Certificate (State Exams in Ireland that you do after 3 years of Secondary School) that there was certain options for what you could choose to study. The one area that I do remember the best though was the section on modern history. We did Irish History from the War of Independence to the 90's and also World War II. We left out the Vietnam War.

Gentreau spouted:
The other big problem is, that a lot of what we read or are taught, is not accurate. Often historical events are coloured to suit the politics of those telling the story or writing the book. And some of the older stuff is just plain made-up.

I was lucky. I did Irish history at a time when they were really trying to help children undertand the troubles without biasing towards a political party or religion. One of the things that stood out was the impact that television had in the 60's in Ireland. It was the first time that the troubles were broadcast around the world. People in different countries were able to see police brutalities, the horror and suffering from paramilitary bombings and how inept the politians were. THe governments couldn't hide how bad it was.

But watching tv lately, for things like war on Iraq, makes me cringe. The total difference in coverage from one country to the next, the absolute bias towards certain points of view and the invasion of privacy leaves a bad taste in my mouth. IS this what children are going to see in years to come and think that is what the world was like.............

The documentary film"The Revolution will not be televised". (http://www.chavezthefilm.com/index_ex.htm) is good to watch to see how the media control of opinion.

hugo-a-gogo spouted:
Abraham Lincoln spouted ...........

But he didn't sign the declaration in 1776. He wasn't born until 33 years later (1809)

http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html

Approximately 75% of those who put their signatures to the following words were at the same time slave-owners:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

The sad point is, much of history is written by people with a political axe to grind. They also know that most people won't bother to dig a little deeper to find the whole truth.

Gentreau spouted:


But he didn't sign the declaration in 1776. He wasn't born until 33 years later (1809)

oh aye, i wasn't saying he did sign it, just that he is one of those often credited with being pro-equality, and anti slavery

The whole idea of the Civil War, and the racial equality movements since, was to redress the double standard unresolved at the Declaration of Independence (discuss). Interesting to compare the Declaration (1776) with the Declaration of Arbroath (1320)

The whole idea of the civil war was to bankrupt the Union so that it would borrow money from those who were behind the war in the first place. When Lincoln refused to propose what is now the Federal Reserve Bank, he was conveniently assassinated.

Once he was shot, the bill was proposed and passed before he had died !!

Thanks Fireboy - you inspired me to find out more about Scotlands glittering past. Here it is for anyone who's interested - the Magicguppy 100% accurate history of Scotland

more or less 100% accurate...

Scotland: 6000 BC, no dinosaurs, no vikings, but many neolithic people hunting haggis and fishing in coastal waters.
2000 BC, The Picts (anyone north of the Firth of Forth) had discovered metalwork and Buckfast, the Celts, (anyone south of the Firth) introduced croissants and hemp.

Romans invaded. Romans got their cunts kicked. Romans were driven back from Mons Grapius and built the antonine wall to keep the radge bastards out. Romans saved face by saying they never wanted Scotland anyway, because of Aberdeen.

Romans left reading and writing behind and history becomes documented.

Four races are left behind to copulate with their mothers - the Picts of Celtic, The Britons of Strathclyde, the Teutonic Anglo-Saxons and The Scots, from Northern Ireland.

The Picts and Scots spent more time paggering each other than they spent fighting their common enemies and refused to communicate in a common tounge.

All was saved when the good name of our holy lord unified the four races and they all became bible bashers, King Kenny "Ginga nuts" MacAlpin defeated the Picts and claimed the throne to the unified Alban (Gaelic for Rainy-pissy-cloudy-land).

Macbeth killed Ginga nuts' and while nobody was looking, the vikings took over the Western Isles, no one wanted them anyway.

A few years later Rab the Bruce took his mates to Bannockburn for a Derby match against England, the pitch was sodden and the English had turned up with three times as many people as they were allowed for a football match. They agreed to fight it out for the sake of Scottish Independence and rescue Scotland back from Eddie "Hammer of the Scots" the 1st. The Scots just couldn't get on with their Hammerer and nutted the English back to Carlisle whenst they stayed.

Eddie the 1st agreed to install a pussy named John Balliol as king. This pussy buggered it up for everyone and Eddie nicked the Stone of Scone which was a big rock used to make a king of a man. Rab the Bruce had taken a wee backhander for some free land and sat in the background for a bit.

Mad jock, Mel Gibson started a scuffle with some Sherrifs in Lanark and eventually got enough of a following behind him that he was able to secure some astonishing, dubious and down right jammy victories against English forces. Mel, too was eventually given his nuts to play with. He did, however, win an Oscar.

Rab the Bruce decided to free himself from his fealty with Eddie 1st and declared himself King of Scots, the Scots decided he was a cheeky bastard until he signed the Declaration of Arbroath in 1328 and did the all round right thing.

Around this time, it all went pear shaped, a succession of crap kings who kept getting their arses kicked, despite the fact that England was engaged in a rather long battle that they had optimistically named "The 100 years War" with France, no Scottish king could stop them taking back Berwick (shame, it's quite nice) or stop Knox, who brought about half a millennia of stupid religious drivel.

Scotland and England now had a king called James and his religious drivel was also enforced north of the border as the Five Articles which were impressively ignored by everyone. Around this time some plucky literary types were beginning to fly the Scottish flag for poetry, short stories and ill-fated screenplays. James also decided to set up a system called "sectarianism" by encouraging Scots to bugger off to Ireland and plant something in Ulster. Keen to rid the country of more Scots, he sent some off to Canada to establish Nova Scotia.

Now the phone lines were open and the top place had changed a couple of times, Cromwell was on top, Charles was voted out and got his head chopped off, Charles II the revenge came to Scotland to claim throne and Cromwell decided Charles could have it as long as he could have Edinburgh. Their successor was known as James, he started a band called the Jacobites and some guy called William took over.

The Middle ages were the age of ism's, Scotland made welcome Calvinism, Catholisism, Protestantism, Presbyterianism, Druidism, Paganism and a cheekyweebism called Elizabeth.

Still bitterly kicking each others pusses in, clan war raged and the McDonalds got Scotlands largest ever chibbing in Glencoe, when they were ambushed on the way home from the Kings House Hotel.
Whilst everyone was distracted with events in the Boyne, England and Scotland secretly went to Vegas for a shotgun wedding, this was known as the Union on 1707. this was a rather ill thought out move as it meant that Scotland were giving up the independence that Mel Gibson fought so
bravely to ensure. On the plus side, Gaelic gave way to the more colourful and less phlegm inducing English language. With this new language it was not long before a few smart arse Scots had registered patents for inventions such as the revolving telescope and institutional Law.

Tragically, Highlanders were forced under some of these new laws to "no longer carry chibs in public" which invariably meant an end to bloody pub scraps in the car park at closing time. The Jacobites were doing well with their tour and had enlisted a new front man: Bonnie Prince Chick, it was time for a rebellion involving guns, Culloden and some cross-dressing.

Four months after the Jacobites nearly got Christmas number one at Culloden, a new band topped the charts with God Save the King. Which was to remain the top tune of the millennia until a cover version in the 20th century went PC crazy and released God Save the Queen. This anthem in the 18th century was a sign that the Highlanders had lost their wee
rebellion and British was the new way. Highlanders were forbidden from wearing kilts and carrying huge weapons in public unless they were soldiers and the Celtic way of life subsided to a few hopeless top 10 efforts from gaelic band Clannad.
Scotland even lost its parliament, for the time being anyway.

The next couple of centuries saw Scotland joining England in taking over the world, murdering most of it's people and then giving it all back again, to go right back to where we were in the 16th century, just without the swords and funny language, but retaining the right to cross-dress and eat yummy sheeps stomach.

Despite some fascist Scot-hater called John Wilkes (Booth?) who apparently didn't like the jocks and had it in for Abraham Lincoln too, the Scots were slowly winning support for a Scottish Parliament, in part due to their ingenious weegie inventors. Charles MacKintosh invented the Mac to keep the constant west coast rain at bay, James Watt did something clever with steam engines and Adam Smith contributed greatly
to the film A Beautiful Mind, by establishing modern economic theory.

Perhaps the greatest contribution to western civilisation came in 1978 when Archie Gemmill scored against Holland in the world cup. The rest of the world agreed that it wouldn't long before Scotland lifted the cup.

To cut a long story short, in 1997 a strange and relatively purple prime minister called Tony held a referendum as he had once been educated in Edinburgh and reckoned it was a fairly nice place to build a cheap, stringently budgeted parliamentary centre. Plans were quickly developed,
socialists were brought in to add a bit of mischief to the place and the worlds most expensive building site was established.

A short time later, Scotland won the world cup, which, the world agreed had been a long time coming.

Gentreau spouted:
Trouble with history is, there's so much of it!

arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

How can you condense a countries history into such a small post. Glossing over of and so on ... i am pleased to see i inspired you but do you not want to take it just that little bit further to satisfy your own curiosity or does

Scotland: 6000 BC, no dinosaurs, no vikings, but many neolithic people hunting haggis and fishing in coastal waters.
2000 BC, The Picts (anyone north of the Firth of Forth) had discovered metalwork and Buckfast, the Celts, (anyone south of the Firth) introduced croissants and hemp.

do it ?

Am in absolute agreement, does it do justice?

Probably not, but it's a damn site more accurate than Braveheart. Especially the bit about Archie Gemmill.

In all seriousness, I learned much from my research but everyone knows that History is the most interesting, boring thing there is. In essence, I suppose we take what we need to establish lessons. For that purpose, history can be condensed, say, Nazi occupation condensed into a two hour movie....

fireboy spouted:

How can you condense a countries history into such a small post.

I thought that was a bloody long post actually. What are you after, a novel?

Ah I get it, your collecting a comprehensive history of the globe and will sell it all for financial gain once its done.

Note to other posters Copyright all researched history before posting it

ha ha ha, not at all.

I think the many styles to writing let alone the dubious sources would make it a bitch to collate, it is always better to do these things for yourself :p no ?

Gentreau spouted:
Trouble with history is, there's so much of it!


I think that the trouble with history is that it is so easy to rewrite.

All ancient-1800's history was passed down to us by those who could write. This was usually, white upper-class men, who would invariably recount the version that showed them selves in the most favourable light.

This process of sabotaging history is still going on in many autocratic states.

Monacella spouted:
This process of sabotaging history is still going on in many autocratic states.

And most of the so-called democratic ones too

Gentreau spouted:


And most of the so-called democratic ones too

True, but at least there is freedom of speech etc, could you imagine Dogomb being allowed in Iran for example?

the bbc spouted:

As Czechoslovakia was liberated from the Nazis at the end of World War II, the population of the country took its revenge - not on the Nazis themselves, but on three million of their fellow citizens


Nazis were still there lazing around in deck chairs I suppose ?

the rest of the article sounds like horseshit too.

Monacella spouted:

True, but at least there is freedom of speech etc, could you imagine Dogomb being allowed in Iran for example?

That's how it appears, yes. The major difference between the 'free' countries and the 'oppressive' ones is simply the method of control which is being used. The more sophisticated and educated the population, the more subtle the means of control which are needed. It's all still control though.

I consider myself lucky that my father served in WW11 which gave me a keen interest in it and gave me a first hand account through the eyes of someone who was there. Set aside the bullshit (father was a wit) about everyone carrying a tommy gun and being tortured by the Japanese because he was on a ship called HMS BULLASHIT, he gave me a insight into what it was really like. My wifes father was a fireman and his mate (still going strong at 93) saw service in Italy, Egypt and Germany, fantastic stories to be told.

I was honored to spend a evening with a french resistance member some years ago. He told us stories of extreme bravery and sacrifice (and kicked the shit out a fucking expensive bottle of brandy) he had us transfixed for hours. History is extremley important in my opinion. It gives a insight into a different world and a different way of life and makes you very pleased not to have been a part of it. It makes you realise just how fucking easy our lifes really are and how little is asked of us. Its something that commands respect.

Cleopatra and her reign as pharoh in Egypt is another bit of history that has always been bastardised according to the status quo of the time- she fucking rocked!

Lil' al spouted:
according to the status quo of the time

i know they've been going for a while, but i had no idea they were that old

Hell yeah- even Plato wrote about their legendry gig on the banks of the Nile that lead to the burning of the great library in Alexandria- it's all there in the heiroglyphics.

Is it falsifiable ?

;)

I can't remember where I read it exactly but intially trade came about as there were those who had better tools, so they would swap a tool for a animal, then came symbols for that, and consequentially money. At times of limited resources means were then required to prevent instability, first the fairest way of deciding how to agree to disagree and second the best way of applying the consensus view so from that you have government working for voters, and vice versa. I was terrible at history at school, I can't remember much of it.