Debunked fake history you probably believe

Oct 2018
1,209
Adelaide south Australia
#21
@MAGolding

"If you think that an Indian reservation was like a Nazi concentration camp, you are wrong"

I did not say that, and did not men to imply such a thing .I was simply using the term 'concentration camp' in a specific sense. The Nazi concentration camps were at the extreme limit .

Those used by the US for Native Americans, or Japanese Americans during WW2, and by theEnglish in the Boer war were totally different in , but they were still concentration camps in that certain groups were interred and could not leave. Concentration camps are an egregious failure to afford people a basic right of Habeus Corpus,,which was established Magna Carta (1215),. That document is the basis of British Common law ,and by extension, US law and constitution..


"A concentration camp (or internment camp) is a place where a government forces people to live without trial. Usually, those people belong to groups the government does not like. The term means to confine (keep in a secure manner) "enemy citizens in wartime or terrorism suspects".

Some governments put people in concentration camps because they belong to a certain religion, race, or ethnic group.

Usually, people are sent to concentration camps without having had a trial or being found guilty of a crime. "

Concentration camp - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

MAGolding

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,710
Chalfont, Pennsylvania
#22
@MAGolding

"If you think that an Indian reservation was like a Nazi concentration camp, you are wrong"

I did not say that, and did not men to imply such a thing .I was simply using the term 'concentration camp' in a specific sense. The Nazi concentration camps were at the extreme limit .

Those used by the US for Native Americans, or Japanese Americans during WW2, and by theEnglish in the Boer war were totally different in , but they were still concentration camps in that certain groups were interred and could not leave. Concentration camps are an egregious failure to afford people a basic right of Habeus Corpus,,which was established Magna Carta (1215),. That document is the basis of British Common law ,and by extension, US law and constitution..


"A concentration camp (or internment camp) is a place where a government forces people to live without trial. Usually, those people belong to groups the government does not like. The term means to confine (keep in a secure manner) "enemy citizens in wartime or terrorism suspects".

Some governments put people in concentration camps because they belong to a certain religion, race, or ethnic group.

Usually, people are sent to concentration camps without having had a trial or being found guilty of a crime. "

Concentration camp - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A concentration camp generally contains barracks to put the detainees in, barracks for the guards, other buildings, etc, surrounded by walls, stockades, barbed wire fences, etc. and generally covers a relatively small area.

An Indian reservation, on the other hand, was and is usually part of the tribe's homeland that is not ceded to the government and retained in the ownership of the tribe. Of course in the 19th century the government often pressured tribes to cede all their land and move hundreds of miles to new reservations, which was a cause of a number of outbreaks, uprisings, and wars. A map of Indian and native Alaskan reservations in the USA should show that the fraction of their original lands retained by the various tribes means that they own far more land per person than the average American does. Most Indian reservations are many times larger than the typical concentration camp and a few are larger than the smallest states.

The proposal to build a wall or fence along the entire border with Mexico is very controversial. I can't imagine how much longer and more expensive walls or fences around each and every Indian reservation would have been in the 19th century but I know that both the US army and the Indian Bureau had small and inadequate budgets and would never have considered such a fantastically expensive project. Nor were Indians usually locked up in buildings but usually made their homes in various parts of their reservations. Indians often applied for permission to leave their reservations to hunt. And many hostile warriors would leave the reservations without permission to raid and then sneak back onto the reservations.

In short, Indians were not confined to their reservations as thoroughly as the phrase "concentration camps" implies.
 
Apr 2017
138
Bayreuth
#23
Debunked fake history you probably believe. The misconceptions, false historical narratives and things you believe that aren't true. The History that is not taught in schools. Slaves built the pyramids? People thought the world was flat? Marie Antoinette said let them eat cake? Vikings had horned helmets? Hitler created the Autobahn? Polish cavalry charged German tanks? 300 Spartans fought Persians? Germany created concentration camps? NBS History will debunk some fake history!
You, Sir. Google now Oseberg-carpet – and then you explain to me what the guy in the upper left corner wears on his head.
1904 that thing was found.
105 years later: And now I explain to you why vikings did not had horned helmets.

Are we lucky that we are not surgeons... Imagine we would be surgeons and do such a mistake, somebody would be dead now. And then I would stand here and ask: Why did you cut out his heart? You can not live without a heart, you should know that!
And you would cry tears and go: I am so sorry! I am so sorry!
What a lucky us. In your face 25 years sentence for murdering a patient! Long live historians! The only form of science where nobody gets hurt.

And do not dare to try - we only got one metal helmet thing - with me. Just saying.

In return the truth where that comes from:

That guy form the costume department was Professor Carl Doepler.
If you read Carl Doepler you read Steven Spielberg, so big that guy was in his life-time.
But he did not invent them. That horned helmets are an outcome of the Scandinavian romantic era of the mid 19th century.
It was a popular image in Scandinavia and based on that Doepler assumed that it was accurate.
That is how the horned helmets even ended up in Wagner's the Ring.

As I do not assume you know that work: It is on extras and one supporting character. No main-character wears them.
And Wagner if he would not have run out of money – would have fired that guy for that.
Because Doepler was a nationalist and Wagner was not. To him art was universal and he tried to create based on different folklore a universal myth.
As it includes the Nibelung saga – the high-jacked story by German nationalists as the German founding myth - they high-jacked the opera, till Wagner's grandson will end this.

So in the outcome they sold the costumes because they only could do the premiere (no more money), but the costumes went with the director Neumann who brought the opera cross the world.
So the Ring is the most popular piece where you could see Germans (there are no vikings in the Ring and all the spirits wear feather helmets) with horned helmets – but it was not the first image – and it was highly debated already during its time concerning such accuracy. Even in Scandinavia.

You want to look up August Malmstroem or Lorenz Frolich, there is plenty of art or pictures of that time, where people dressed up like later the characters in the opera looked like.
 

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
32,491
T'Republic of Yorkshire
#24
HItler didn't create the Autobahn, it was a project that had been around since the earlier days of the Wiemar Republic. However, HItler did, upon assuming power, pursue the project much more vigorously than previous governments. Hitler "built the Autobahn" as much as "300 Spartans stood at Thermopylae": true in some respects, but requires clarification and context to be considered honest statements.

It is statements like the ones you listed, plus:

-"Wellington never lost a battle."
-"Hannibal was the Father of Strategy"
-"The ACW was/was not about slavery" (both sides annoy the hell out of me on this). Most accurately, the Civil War had its original "root causes" in slavery, was specifically started over States Rights, and ended as a moral crusade against the "peculiar institution." And for the individual soldiers, most of which didn't actually own slaves, fought for a variety of reasons, including Southern Patriotism (as claimed by some black soldiers who fought for the Confederacy). More importantly, there was a massive cultural divide between North and South: some regions of the world that were legally separate countries had more in common with one another than the North and South. I would hazard that your average Confederate soldier believed he was fighting for "his way of life" as opposed to "I hate black people, want to enslave them, and do horrible things to them." While I would personally support neither philosophy, the former is at least justifiably rational whereas the latter is not.
-The whole way we think of "Roman Emperors." Until the rule of Diocletian, the whole concept of a "Roman Emperor" as we see it today was so removed from those men who actually held the position of princeps ("First Citizen") our popular notion of Roman Emperors is closer to Emperor Palpatine from Star Wars than to reality.
Do not engage in tu quoque fallacies. Whatever Australia may or may not have done does not disallow an Australian from commenting on American practices andd nor does it entitle you to flame bait.
 

specul8

Ad Honorem
Oct 2016
3,031
Australia
#25
But of course Australia extermination the Aboriginals.was a noble thing.
If this is sarcasm , I suppose you must have missed the comments both I and bboomer have made about this .

Its a part of our history that has been covered up and we both openly admit it , show it and expose it.
You succeed in Tasmania, but what happened in Australia mainland, why didn't you succeed.
You seem to believe the old school history yourself . If you walk into the Hobart (Tasmanian capital city) museum indigenous section you will be confronted by a sign that says something like " The biggest battle the Tasmanian Aboriginal has is to convince the world they where not exterminated. "

Or, if the museum is too far for you - there is always Wikipedia ... just a few ' clicks ' away ;

The Aboriginal Tasmanians (Tasmanian: Palawa) are the indigenous people of the Australian state of Tasmania, located south of the mainland. For much of the 20th century, the Tasmanian Aboriginal people were widely, and erroneously, thought of as being an extinct cultural and ethnic group.[4] Contemporary figures (2016) for the number of people of Tasmanian Aboriginal descent vary according to the criteria used to determine this identity, ranging from 6,000 to over 23,000
 
Last edited:
Aug 2014
206
New York, USA
#26
Is it true that whole divisions of Soviet cavalry charged German tanks in Ukraine in1941 and 1942 and got massacred? I think that it was a Budyonny's bright idea.
Soviets used cavalry all the way up to 1945. Cavalry was mostly used to harass supply lines during breakout offensives. Also, cavalry regiments were mostly imbedded into other mechanized formations. I believe there were some full on cavalry charges in '41 and '42, but most of them were done out of desperation, when a cavalry unit ran into German tanks during a scouting mission, or if they found themselves suddenly encircled.
 

specul8

Ad Honorem
Oct 2016
3,031
Australia
#27
At present Australia is going through a huge revision of its history . So much fake history is out there, but the really surprising thing is, we DO have valid historical records of what Australia was really like during ' first contact ' . Somehow, its been covered up, ignored, not taught, archived away, etc .

This is not from legend or listening to what the Aboriginal people think and say - this is from historical accounts, and paintings of what they first Europeans saw and experienced.

I got tired of reading the same accounts over and over and over again ; " Like an English park ..... like a Gentleman's park .... ( and considering, back then , what they where thinking when they said 'park' isnt at all like a public park we might have today, nor did they National Parks - more like an 'estate' or the grounds around a huge house ; grassy lawns, lakes and ponds, copses of trees, cleared underbrush, forested areas and clear areas stocked for hunting, glades, etc . ) .... like a Lord's estate ."

1548886594340.png

Also the system of 'governance' : they live like Lord's , their life is mostly leisure , there is no class division, no one has to slave for a living and everyone owns land . They even noticed it in their postures ; proud, healthy, manly - one Englishman even comment about this that their fine stature and posture was due to never having to slave at work, constantly at the plow or hunched over a desk ( he seemed to suggest that the western lifestyle had made them 'cripples' ). Even Capt. Cook noted all this in his diaries from Cooktown ( he stayed there a few weeks with the Aboriginals due to ship repairs ) He said they want for nothing and live in freedom with everything supplied they need. The left trade goods on the ground as they had no need for them. .... and so on.

Many can not believe this and get rude, insulting and all the other tricks ... even in conversations here. There are many trying to guffaw at this new emergence. I guess its threatening to many and maybe even undermines the deep seated consciousness about western / Euro./ white / civilization supremacy .

YET, when talking to some ( eg. a friend who did horticulture at tech , my sister who is an environmental scientist / biologist ) : "Oh yes, I studied that as part of my course, it was in the curriculum ."

Vast gaps between peoples knowledge !

‘The Biggest Estate on Earth’ by Bill Gammage

So, although vast parts of Australia's history (around 1770) are 'fake' , they havent actually been 'debunked' yet , in general .

That might take some time .
 
May 2018
646
Michigan
#28
Do not engage in tu quoque fallacies. Whatever Australia may or may not have done does not disallow an Australian from commenting on American practices andd nor does it entitle you to flame bait.
Ummm, what does anything I said have to do with Australia or hypocrisy? If you think I was, you are wrong.

I added commentary on the Autobahn thing, and provided exaples of historical misconceptions that I disagree with.

I honestly don't care about whatever is being said about Australia at the moment.
 

Similar History Discussions