Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

How much of "History" is true?

smelisox
Posts: 849
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 4:03:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
This question has always fascinated me. Churchill has a famous quote, "History is written by the victors."

How much of our history is exaggerated or downright false? Turkey denies the armenian holocaust, the indian holocaust (over 2 billion dead) isn't talked about or taught in the UK and the Shoah is sometimes denied.
sword
Posts: 96
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 4:49:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 4:03:07 PM, smelisox wrote:
This question has always fascinated me. Churchill has a famous quote, "History is written by the victors."

How much of our history is exaggerated or downright false? Turkey denies the armenian holocaust, the indian holocaust (over 2 billion dead) isn't talked about or taught in the UK and the Shoah is sometimes denied. : :

Anything outside your own unique experiences can not be proven to be true so history is subjective.
smelisox
Posts: 849
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 5:19:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Not really. I never saw the birth of my great great grandfather, yet it's true he was born or I would not exist.

I never saw the Sun be born, yet it is there so there was a birth.
PatriotPerson
Posts: 1,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 7:54:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 5:19:20 PM, smelisox wrote:
Not really. I never saw the birth of my great great grandfather, yet it's true he was born or I would not exist.

I never saw the Sun be born, yet it is there so there was a birth.

Deep
"Victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan" -JFK
"You all stink like poo poo" - Rich Davis
"That idea may just be crazy enough... TO GET US ALL KILLED!" -Squidward Tentacles
"My heart is always breaking for the ghosts that haunt this room." -Nate Ruess
sword
Posts: 96
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2015 2:12:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 5:19:20 PM, smelisox wrote:
Not really. I never saw the birth of my great great grandfather, yet it's true he was born or I would not exist.

Can you prove that your great great grandfather was really your great great grandfather? Some parents don't tell their children if they're adopted or not.

I never saw the Sun be born, yet it is there so there was a birth.

If you haven't see the Sun be born, then you have no proof if it was born or just an illusion.
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2015 2:13:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 4:03:07 PM, smelisox wrote:
This question has always fascinated me. Churchill has a famous quote, "History is written by the victors."

How much of our history is exaggerated or downright false? Turkey denies the armenian holocaust, the indian holocaust (over 2 billion dead) isn't talked about or taught in the UK and the Shoah is sometimes denied.

Enough.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
j50wells
Posts: 345
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2015 7:51:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Well said. History tends to be written by the winners is definitely true. The question then remains...is that history for the good of the people of for their downfall?

I generally like a history that tends to bring people together in unity and allow them to build economies. Now the word economy sounds like an evil word for socialists and their friends, but for any good historian, the economy is the most important substance of a people and their future together.

If a history tells me that my culture is great, or helps other people become great, then I want that history. If my history is about genocide and rape, then I'd rather get the other version of us not being evil.

Evil history divides people. It brings up old wounds. It divides people along classes, races, and cultures. It usually leads to wars and genocide. A good history, even if it's made up, heals wounds. It allows the current people to leave the past behind and not dig up old bones.

Today in America, old histories wounds are being visited upon us. I don't think this is a good thing. Some people think it's a good thing and that somehow justice will be served. But if the people that want to look at our evil history and throw it in our faces had to look at their own history, then they'd be quavling in the dirt also. The people that they hurt would also be wanting reparations.

At some point the vendettas have to be laid to rest, otherwise there will be evil in the land again. And other people will get hurt. Then 150 years from now their ancestors will be looking to exact the revenge, or if we lost we'd be looking to exact our revenge. It can go on and on like that, for a thousand years.

That's why the USA is so important. The Bill of Rights and Constitution can be followed. They can become a rule book so to speak. Those who follow it, no matter who they are, can find a good and peaceful life. Those who do not will find the evil of the past surrounding them and driving them forward to do more evil. That evil begets more evil and so on, for no sane people will take any sort abuse whether deserved because of their grandfathers sins or not. They will fight. More evil will come.

At some point a nation has to put the past to the rest. While fifty years ago may be to fresh, 150 years ago is not. It is of utmost importance to put that evil to rest and move forward. I'd be a fool to go kill the grandsons of the great grandpa who murdered my great grandpa in the Coos River of Oregon back in the 1920's. In fact, it was so long ago that I could sit with his grandkids right now and not think a thing about it. If I wanted to be mean an evil I could start a new war. That war could get me killed.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2015 9:46:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 4:03:07 PM, smelisox wrote:
This question has always fascinated me. Churchill has a famous quote, "History is written by the victors."

How much of our history is exaggerated or downright false? Turkey denies the armenian holocaust, the indian holocaust (over 2 billion dead) isn't talked about or taught in the UK and the Shoah is sometimes denied.

I think you probably meant to ask us "how much of written history is true?"

This may seem like nit-picking, or being unduly pedantic, but I truly believe the distinction is a crucial one. Since we all know that "history" is like saying "events that have happened in the past." Thus, it is ALL true.

But, yes: How much of of all those history books are factually accurate? A difficult question, to be sure. The Churchill quote is an excellent and valid one. The vast majority of history book authors have agendas. Even those publishing houses that write our schools' textbooks.

I think that in that context, educational textbooks in our school system, that they have over the past, oh, 20 years gotten more accurate and objective than before. You see a good deal of what is called "Revisionist History" in them these days. The type of non-nationalist and "both sides of the story" journalism that one previously had to look to the likes of revisionist historians like Howard Zinn for.

(By the way: in speaking of history textbooks I can only speak for my country, which is the USA. I sometimes forget we have folks of other countries here on DDO).

Ironically, and even though I am nobody's liberal, I think it has been the increasing influx in liberal-minded academicians in our school system who are responsible for seeing that our books are more "no spin" (as Bill O-Reilly would say) than they have been in the past.

I am a big fan of the historical novel, as well. I find this genre to be an excellent source for gleaning the inside scoop for a lot of history. Guys like Jeff Shaara bring it all alive, and have a technique for including many facets of the story. (for example, in a book like "The Killer Angels" about the Battle of Gettysburg during the Civil War, he tells the story from the views of both the Commanders, like Robert E. Lee and U.S. Grant, as well as a Union private.

For somebody who would really like to learn some good history but simply finds it often dry and boring, I think that Shaara cannot be beat!

Good thread! Thank you.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
DutifulCynic
Posts: 46
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2015 4:46:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/3/2015 7:51:18 PM, j50wells wrote:

I generally like a history that tends to bring people together in unity and allow them to build economies. Now the word economy sounds like an evil word for socialists and their friends, but for any good historian, the economy is the most important substance of a people and their future together.
Amusing, considering Marx was the one of the first who looked at history from a purely economic perspective. What do you think Das Kapital means?
j50wells
Posts: 345
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2015 8:55:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/7/2015 4:46:03 AM, DutifulCynic wrote:
At 7/3/2015 7:51:18 PM, j50wells wrote:

I generally like a history that tends to bring people together in unity and allow them to build economies. Now the word economy sounds like an evil word for socialists and their friends, but for any good historian, the economy is the most important substance of a people and their future together.
Amusing, considering Marx was the one of the first who looked at history from a purely economic perspective. What do you think Das Kapital means?

True, but he looked at it wrongly. He didn't take into account the biological urge of humans. He also didn't understand that socialism would lead to slavery....slavery to the state, for when the state takes over the means of production, the people no longer have a biological urge to work, because they no longer get to keep the fruits of their labor, so the socialist government has to point guns at people to get them to work. This is exactly what happened in Russia, China, Cambodia, and other nations. Vietnam wasn't nearly as bad, mainly because Ho Chi Minh allowed there to be a mixed economy. He saw the history of extreme socialism and knew it wouldn't work, so he allowed for some capitalistic freedoms, which is why genocide didn't take place.
DutifulCynic
Posts: 46
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2015 3:12:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/7/2015 8:55:05 AM, j50wells wrote:


True, but he looked at it wrongly. He didn't take into account the biological urge of humans.
Uh, yes, he did. Marxism is fundamentally about competition for resources.

He also didn't understand that socialism would lead to slavery....slavery to the state,
Socialism does not need a heavy government, and communism is in fact supposed to be stateless.
for when the state takes over the means of production, the people no longer have a biological urge to work,
Marx never advocated that the state should take over the means of production, at least not permanently.
because they no longer get to keep the fruits of their labor, so the socialist government has to point guns at people to get them to work.
You clearly don't understand what socialism is in fact supposed to be.
This is exactly what happened in Russia, China, Cambodia, and other nations. Vietnam wasn't nearly as bad, mainly because Ho Chi Minh allowed there to be a mixed economy.
Total state control didn't exist in these countries, where there was in fact serious state control.
He saw the history of extreme socialism and knew it wouldn't work, so he allowed for some capitalistic freedoms, which is why genocide didn't take place.
So did Tito, because he followed a more truthful stance o what socialism is.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2015 4:39:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/2/2015 2:13:34 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 7/1/2015 4:03:07 PM, smelisox wrote:
This question has always fascinated me. Churchill has a famous quote, "History is written by the victors."

How much of our history is exaggerated or downright false? Turkey denies the armenian holocaust, the indian holocaust (over 2 billion dead) isn't talked about or taught in the UK and the Shoah is sometimes denied.

Enough.

Great answer. Deep and profound.

76.

LOL
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2015 4:40:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/7/2015 4:39:51 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 7/2/2015 2:13:34 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 7/1/2015 4:03:07 PM, smelisox wrote:
This question has always fascinated me. Churchill has a famous quote, "History is written by the victors."

How much of our history is exaggerated or downright false? Turkey denies the armenian holocaust, the indian holocaust (over 2 billion dead) isn't talked about or taught in the UK and the Shoah is sometimes denied.

Enough.


Great answer. Deep and profound.


76.

LOL

Can you please stop?
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
j50wells
Posts: 345
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 6:26:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/7/2015 3:12:02 PM, DutifulCynic wrote:
At 7/7/2015 8:55:05 AM, j50wells wrote:


True, but he looked at it wrongly. He didn't take into account the biological urge of humans.
Uh, yes, he did. Marxism is fundamentally about competition for resources.

He also didn't understand that socialism would lead to slavery....slavery to the state,
Socialism does not need a heavy government, and communism is in fact supposed to be stateless.
for when the state takes over the means of production, the people no longer have a biological urge to work,
Marx never advocated that the state should take over the means of production, at least not permanently.
because they no longer get to keep the fruits of their labor, so the socialist government has to point guns at people to get them to work.
You clearly don't understand what socialism is in fact supposed to be.
This is exactly what happened in Russia, China, Cambodia, and other nations. Vietnam wasn't nearly as bad, mainly because Ho Chi Minh allowed there to be a mixed economy.
Total state control didn't exist in these countries, where there was in fact serious state control.
He saw the history of extreme socialism and knew it wouldn't work, so he allowed for some capitalistic freedoms, which is why genocide didn't take place.
So did Tito, because he followed a more truthful stance o what socialism is.
Sigh, socialists are just like debating with Christians. When shown the truth of the matter they just evade. When backed into the corner, they lie. Unless you can be more truthful, which is impossible for socialists, this debate is over.
j50wells
Posts: 345
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2015 7:54:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/7/2015 3:12:02 PM, DutifulCynic wrote:
At 7/7/2015 8:55:05 AM, j50wells wrote:


True, but he looked at it wrongly. He didn't take into account the biological urge of humans.
Uh, yes, he did. Marxism is fundamentally about competition for resources.

He also didn't understand that socialism would lead to slavery....slavery to the state,
Socialism does not need a heavy government, and communism is in fact supposed to be stateless.
for when the state takes over the means of production, the people no longer have a biological urge to work,
Marx never advocated that the state should take over the means of production, at least not permanently.
because they no longer get to keep the fruits of their labor, so the socialist government has to point guns at people to get them to work.
You clearly don't understand what socialism is in fact supposed to be.
This is exactly what happened in Russia, China, Cambodia, and other nations. Vietnam wasn't nearly as bad, mainly because Ho Chi Minh allowed there to be a mixed economy.
Total state control didn't exist in these countries, where there was in fact serious state control.
He saw the history of extreme socialism and knew it wouldn't work, so he allowed for some capitalistic freedoms, which is why genocide didn't take place.
So did Tito, because he followed a more truthful stance o what socialism is.

Just so we can expose the truth one last time, Tito's regime murdered nearly 1 million in a country of 20 million. That would be like the USA murdering 15 million people in America. Talking about these things with socialists is like talking to Christians about the genocide in the Bible. Their fanaticism is so deep that no amount of facts and data can extract them from their error.
Imagine that buddy. 1 in 20 murdered. That's not counting the 500,000 people who were imprisoned, and another 1 million who were ostracized and lived a life of fear and poverty. 1 in 9 people were smeared into the dirt by Tito. So imagine this....your mom is a 1 in 9er under his regime. So's your grandpa, best friend, favorite school teacher, first love from high school, that cool guy that you used to go fishing with, that whole family that lives next door to you, your cousin, your brothers wife....all these people were whisked away to a death ditch, a prison, or to a life of homelessness and poverty. And you celebrate this stuff? Scary dude. I know a few good psychologists that you should see.
But you see, this is why socialists always try to attack the family. They don't want you to have any close bonds with anyone, so that when they do take over, you won't give a crap that your mom or dad just got a bullet in their head. In fact, you will rejoice, because after all, they were and enemy to the people's revolution and must be moved out of the way for your future. It's insane dude.
Atheist-Independent
Posts: 776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 9:37:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 4:03:07 PM, smelisox wrote:
This question has always fascinated me. Churchill has a famous quote, "History is written by the victors."

How much of our history is exaggerated or downright false? Turkey denies the armenian holocaust, the indian holocaust (over 2 billion dead) isn't talked about or taught in the UK and the Shoah is sometimes denied.

2 billion...

you sure about that?
Atheist-Independent
Posts: 776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 9:38:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
But yes, it is true that history is greatly swayed by the views of the victors. That's why we have historians; to discover the truth of historical events and their implications.
smelisox
Posts: 849
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 2:42:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 9:37:01 AM, Atheist-Independent wrote:
At 7/1/2015 4:03:07 PM, smelisox wrote:
This question has always fascinated me. Churchill has a famous quote, "History is written by the victors."

How much of our history is exaggerated or downright false? Turkey denies the armenian holocaust, the indian holocaust (over 2 billion dead) isn't talked about or taught in the UK and the Shoah is sometimes denied.

2 billion...

you sure about that?

Over a period of 180 years I believe. But it was firmly maintained during the Churchill years (where I believe during his term alone more indians died than jews in the holocaust).

You can look it up, that's the number.
Atheist-Independent
Posts: 776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 6:10:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 2:42:16 PM, smelisox wrote:
At 7/13/2015 9:37:01 AM, Atheist-Independent wrote:
At 7/1/2015 4:03:07 PM, smelisox wrote:
This question has always fascinated me. Churchill has a famous quote, "History is written by the victors."

How much of our history is exaggerated or downright false? Turkey denies the armenian holocaust, the indian holocaust (over 2 billion dead) isn't talked about or taught in the UK and the Shoah is sometimes denied.

2 billion...

you sure about that?

Over a period of 180 years I believe. But it was firmly maintained during the Churchill years (where I believe during his term alone more indians died than jews in the holocaust).

You can look it up, that's the number.

2 billion is stupidly exaggerated since the world population at the time was only around 3 billion. The official number is actually only 100,000, but it is likely higher than that. But I don't think it reaches near 6 million although I cannot confirm that.
Atheist-Independent
Posts: 776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 6:13:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 2:42:16 PM, smelisox wrote:
At 7/13/2015 9:37:01 AM, Atheist-Independent wrote:
At 7/1/2015 4:03:07 PM, smelisox wrote:
This question has always fascinated me. Churchill has a famous quote, "History is written by the victors."

How much of our history is exaggerated or downright false? Turkey denies the armenian holocaust, the indian holocaust (over 2 billion dead) isn't talked about or taught in the UK and the Shoah is sometimes denied.

2 billion...

you sure about that?

Over a period of 180 years I believe. But it was firmly maintained during the Churchill years (where I believe during his term alone more indians died than jews in the holocaust).

You can look it up, that's the number.

And also, the Holocaust refers to a very specific event. The word you are looking for is genocide, although I doubt those involved in the tragedy would hardly care about the terminology.
smelisox
Posts: 849
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 2:39:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 6:10:08 PM, Atheist-Independent wrote:
At 7/13/2015 2:42:16 PM, smelisox wrote:
At 7/13/2015 9:37:01 AM, Atheist-Independent wrote:
At 7/1/2015 4:03:07 PM, smelisox wrote:
This question has always fascinated me. Churchill has a famous quote, "History is written by the victors."

How much of our history is exaggerated or downright false? Turkey denies the armenian holocaust, the indian holocaust (over 2 billion dead) isn't talked about or taught in the UK and the Shoah is sometimes denied.

2 billion...

you sure about that?

Over a period of 180 years I believe. But it was firmly maintained during the Churchill years (where I believe during his term alone more indians died than jews in the holocaust).

You can look it up, that's the number.

2 billion is stupidly exaggerated since the world population at the time was only around 3 billion. The official number is actually only 100,000, but it is likely higher than that. But I don't think it reaches near 6 million although I cannot confirm that.

Right, I'll rephrase it in a more kiddie-friendly way.

EARTH GO SPINNY SPIN AND YEARS GO BY
180 YEARS GO BY
INDIAN MAN AND LADY NO DIE IN ONE YEAR
DIE OVER 180 YEARS

More than 110 billion humans have died EVER. There were definitely 2 billion indians who died, and it's disrespectful to say they weren't.

7 million indians died in the Bengali famine during Churchill's office. Far more died during the Raj.
lannan13
Posts: 23,029
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2015 12:45:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 4:03:07 PM, smelisox wrote:
This question has always fascinated me. Churchill has a famous quote, "History is written by the victors."

How much of our history is exaggerated or downright false? Turkey denies the armenian holocaust, the indian holocaust (over 2 billion dead) isn't talked about or taught in the UK and the Shoah is sometimes denied.

Well it's definately not Howard Zinn's history.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
ax123man
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 12:44:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Historians are compelled to interpret the subject under study. Pick up any history book and, although it might appear at first to be a simple restatement of the facts, this is never the case. Last year I found this book in an antique shop: "Seeing Russia" by E.M. Newman, who wrote stories about his travels around the world. He wrote the book based on visits there in 1927. The introduction states:

"In presenting the first uncensored photographs of Russia as I found it, I have tried to maintain a neutral attitude, preferring to present the facts and thus permitting readers to form their own opinions and make their own deductions"

And surprisingly, that is what the book does, for the most part. But this book is a "Traveltalk" not a history book. Newman simply wandered about taking photo's and reporting what he saw. At times it does cover brief history, but very briefly, and with generic, standard interpretation.

It's kind of a cool book because, at that time, it was very hard to get into Russia and even harder to get permission to take pictures. He had visited there in 1911, so was able to contrast Russia pre and post-revolution.

Anyway, historians don't write books like this. They are expected to put the pieces together with some meaning. I do remember at some point in this book Newman called this period in Russia's history a "Grand Experiment", which I think does sum up the way people looked at socialism at that time. Many actually thought, or hoped, it would work.

So then I thought I might want to learn more about the Russian revolution, so off to Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com...

From there I always read a few reviews, some top rated, some bottom. Eventually I can get an idea of the position of the author. In this case, I found this comment, which was informative:

"Pipes and Figes are the two best one volume accounts of the Russian Revolution in English. Pipes is right of center and Figes is left of center."

Pipes and Figes refers to two different historians on the subject, along with the single most important piece of information you would need to know about those authors. If the comment is accurate, perhaps reading both authors would get you a reasonably objective view.

So to the O.P. the word "true" is an over-simplification. 95% of a book could be "true facts" - it's the words between that matter.
SlobodnaDusa
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 8:01:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/8/2015 7:54:05 AM, j50wells wrote:
At 7/7/2015 3:12:02 PM, DutifulCynic wrote:
At 7/7/2015 8:55:05 AM, j50wells wrote:


True, but he looked at it wrongly. He didn't take into account the biological urge of humans.
Uh, yes, he did. Marxism is fundamentally about competition for resources.

He also didn't understand that socialism would lead to slavery....slavery to the state,
Socialism does not need a heavy government, and communism is in fact supposed to be stateless.
for when the state takes over the means of production, the people no longer have a biological urge to work,
Marx never advocated that the state should take over the means of production, at least not permanently.
because they no longer get to keep the fruits of their labor, so the socialist government has to point guns at people to get them to work.
You clearly don't understand what socialism is in fact supposed to be.
This is exactly what happened in Russia, China, Cambodia, and other nations. Vietnam wasn't nearly as bad, mainly because Ho Chi Minh allowed there to be a mixed economy.
Total state control didn't exist in these countries, where there was in fact serious state control.
He saw the history of extreme socialism and knew it wouldn't work, so he allowed for some capitalistic freedoms, which is why genocide didn't take place.
So did Tito, because he followed a more truthful stance o what socialism is.

Just so we can expose the truth one last time, Tito's regime murdered nearly 1 million in a country of 20 million. That would be like the USA murdering 15 million people in America. Talking about these things with socialists is like talking to Christians about the genocide in the Bible. Their fanaticism is so deep that no amount of facts and data can extract them from their error.
Imagine that buddy. 1 in 20 murdered. That's not counting the 500,000 people who were imprisoned, and another 1 million who were ostracized and lived a life of fear and poverty. 1 in 9 people were smeared into the dirt by Tito. So imagine this....your mom is a 1 in 9er under his regime. So's your grandpa, best friend, favorite school teacher, first love from high school, that cool guy that you used to go fishing with, that whole family that lives next door to you, your cousin, your brothers wife....all these people were whisked away to a death ditch, a prison, or to a life of homelessness and poverty. And you celebrate this stuff? Scary dude. I know a few good psychologists that you should see.
But you see, this is why socialists always try to attack the family. They don't want you to have any close bonds with anyone, so that when they do take over, you won't give a crap that your mom or dad just got a bullet in their head. In fact, you will rejoice, because after all, they were and enemy to the people's revolution and must be moved out of the way for your future. It's insane dude.

Tito wasn't socialist. It's completely obvious. There was literally private enterprise in Yugoslavia during the latter half of its existence. They don't even teach us that it was socialist in Croatian schools.

j50wells wrote Sigh, socialists are just like debating with Christians. When shown the truth of the matter they just evade. When backed into the corner, they lie. Unless you can be more truthful, which is impossible for socialists, this debate is over.:

"They're lying because they don't agree with me." What a wonderful way to debate. If you're going to accuse the person you're discussing with of lying, provide evidence.
Mir, ljubav i komunizam
ax123man
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2015 9:21:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 8:01:34 PM, SlobodnaDusa wrote:
At 7/8/2015 7:54:05 AM, j50wells wrote:

Tito wasn't socialist. It's completely obvious. There was literally private enterprise in Yugoslavia during the latter half of its existence. They don't even teach us that it was socialist in Croatian schools.


So this is generally false (selected text from the following article)?

https://www.foreignaffairs.com...

"Tito was a dogmatic autocrat who never considered abandoning either the basic tenets of Marxist-Leninist ideology or the one-party system of government based on it."

"Reforms in 1965 dealt centralized planning a decisive blow and stimulated economic development. But because they began to threaten the party's control over the economy they were drastically slowed down, mostly on Tito's initiative"

"After the purges, Tito advocated reintroduction of party centralism and reinvoked Lenin. Yugoslavia's economic, social, and political life was not sufficiently advanced to resist the dictator, and reforms were discontinued."

That article appears to be based on the book:
Tito and the Rise and Fall of Yugoslavia - Richard West

And at least one review had this to say of West:

"Thankfully, West seems to have no urge to idealise or demolish his subject in the way socialist hagiographers and anti-communist crusaders have tried to do."

I don't know much about education in Croatia, but here in America, you don't learn the truth regarding history in school.
j50wells
Posts: 345
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2015 12:54:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/1/2015 8:01:34 PM, SlobodnaDusa wrote:
At 7/8/2015 7:54:05 AM, j50wells wrote:
At 7/7/2015 3:12:02 PM, DutifulCynic wrote:
At 7/7/2015 8:55:05 AM, j50wells wrote:


True, but he looked at it wrongly. He didn't take into account the biological urge of humans.
Uh, yes, he did. Marxism is fundamentally about competition for resources.

He also didn't understand that socialism would lead to slavery....slavery to the state,
Socialism does not need a heavy government, and communism is in fact supposed to be stateless.
for when the state takes over the means of production, the people no longer have a biological urge to work,
Marx never advocated that the state should take over the means of production, at least not permanently.
because they no longer get to keep the fruits of their labor, so the socialist government has to point guns at people to get them to work.
You clearly don't understand what socialism is in fact supposed to be.
This is exactly what happened in Russia, China, Cambodia, and other nations. Vietnam wasn't nearly as bad, mainly because Ho Chi Minh allowed there to be a mixed economy.
Total state control didn't exist in these countries, where there was in fact serious state control.
He saw the history of extreme socialism and knew it wouldn't work, so he allowed for some capitalistic freedoms, which is why genocide didn't take place.
So did Tito, because he followed a more truthful stance o what socialism is.

Just so we can expose the truth one last time, Tito's regime murdered nearly 1 million in a country of 20 million. That would be like the USA murdering 15 million people in America. Talking about these things with socialists is like talking to Christians about the genocide in the Bible. Their fanaticism is so deep that no amount of facts and data can extract them from their error.
Imagine that buddy. 1 in 20 murdered. That's not counting the 500,000 people who were imprisoned, and another 1 million who were ostracized and lived a life of fear and poverty. 1 in 9 people were smeared into the dirt by Tito. So imagine this....your mom is a 1 in 9er under his regime. So's your grandpa, best friend, favorite school teacher, first love from high school, that cool guy that you used to go fishing with, that whole family that lives next door to you, your cousin, your brothers wife....all these people were whisked away to a death ditch, a prison, or to a life of homelessness and poverty. And you celebrate this stuff? Scary dude. I know a few good psychologists that you should see.
But you see, this is why socialists always try to attack the family. They don't want you to have any close bonds with anyone, so that when they do take over, you won't give a crap that your mom or dad just got a bullet in their head. In fact, you will rejoice, because after all, they were and enemy to the people's revolution and must be moved out of the way for your future. It's insane dude.

Tito wasn't socialist. It's completely obvious. There was literally private enterprise in Yugoslavia during the latter half of its existence. They don't even teach us that it was socialist in Croatian schools.

j50wells wrote Sigh, socialists are just like debating with Christians. When shown the truth of the matter they just evade. When backed into the corner, they lie. Unless you can be more truthful, which is impossible for socialists, this debate is over.:

"They're lying because they don't agree with me." What a wonderful way to debate. If you're going to accuse the person you're discussing with of lying, provide evidence.

I just did....Tito's regime murdered nearly 1 million in a country of 20 million. That would be like the USA murdering 15 million people in America. That's the facts. If you're not willing to accept the facts then you are being dishonest and the debate is over. You can't just say, "that didn't happen." It did happen. You are evading the truth of the situation. Nobody's lying here. You are throwing accusations at people because you don't want to take the time to read about what happened under Tito. This is what socialists do. They cannot admit that it doesn't work. Many honest men have thrown their hands up in disgust after telling socialists about how horrible it was in China and the Soviet Union, and yet the socialist won't believe them. Look at Dennis Rodman going to North Korea. It's as if there is a hot socialist iron that burns the connections of the mind so that people who do follow socialism cannot see. They only see the truth when they are finally at the ditch, and the military police are pointing guns at the back of their heads. At that point it is too late.
What_Ali_Thinks
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 1:16:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 4:03:07 PM, smelisox wrote:
This question has always fascinated me. Churchill has a famous quote, "History is written by the victors."

How much of our history is exaggerated or downright false? Turkey denies the armenian holocaust, the indian holocaust (over 2 billion dead) isn't talked about or taught in the UK and the Shoah is sometimes denied.

As someone who has an area of focus in History, I have wondered this as well. We can all find different interpretations of historic events from books or scholarly articles. How do we know if we are really getting the true facts? No one really knows, but at the very least we know that something did happen and the event was significant.
riveroaks
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 2:05:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 12:44:25 AM, ax123man wrote:
Historians are compelled to interpret the subject under study. Pick up any history book and, although it might appear at first to be a simple restatement of the facts, this is never the case. Last year I found this book in an antique shop: "Seeing Russia" by E.M. Newman, who wrote stories about his travels around the world. He wrote the book based on visits there in 1927. The introduction states:

"In presenting the first uncensored photographs of Russia as I found it, I have tried to maintain a neutral attitude, preferring to present the facts and thus permitting readers to form their own opinions and make their own deductions"

And surprisingly, that is what the book does, for the most part. But this book is a "Traveltalk" not a history book. Newman simply wandered about taking photo's and reporting what he saw. At times it does cover brief history, but very briefly, and with generic, standard interpretation.

It's kind of a cool book because, at that time, it was very hard to get into Russia and even harder to get permission to take pictures. He had visited there in 1911, so was able to contrast Russia pre and post-revolution.

Anyway, historians don't write books like this. They are expected to put the pieces together with some meaning. I do remember at some point in this book Newman called this period in Russia's history a "Grand Experiment", which I think does sum up the way people looked at socialism at that time. Many actually thought, or hoped, it would work.


So then I thought I might want to learn more about the Russian revolution, so off to Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com...

From there I always read a few reviews, some top rated, some bottom. Eventually I can get an idea of the position of the author. In this case, I found this comment, which was informative:

"Pipes and Figes are the two best one volume accounts of the Russian Revolution in English. Pipes is right of center and Figes is left of center."

Pipes and Figes refers to two different historians on the subject, along with the single most important piece of information you would need to know about those authors. If the comment is accurate, perhaps reading both authors would get you a reasonably objective view.

So to the O.P. the word "true" is an over-simplification. 95% of a book could be "true facts" - it's the words between that matter.

Good observations.

The more data that a history book contains, and the less editorial, the more I like it.

Historians who become authors are supposed to present actual facts that they have gleaned from primary sources -- journals, newspaper articles, memoirs, stats, dates and times. Then they are supposed to interpret the data fairly and unbiased.

Before I buy any book, I stand there and read the first chapter, the last chapter, and a chapter in between. If it is full of editorial then I put it back and go find another.

My library at home consists of two bookcases full of history books, from Herodotus to the Reagan administration in DC after he screwed up California first. Anything else after Reagan I can remember on my own from the tv news.
riveroaks
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 2:07:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/19/2015 1:16:33 PM, What_Ali_Thinks wrote:
At 7/1/2015 4:03:07 PM, smelisox wrote:
This question has always fascinated me. Churchill has a famous quote, "History is written by the victors."

How much of our history is exaggerated or downright false? Turkey denies the armenian holocaust, the indian holocaust (over 2 billion dead) isn't talked about or taught in the UK and the Shoah is sometimes denied.


As someone who has an area of focus in History, I have wondered this as well. We can all find different interpretations of historic events from books or scholarly articles. How do we know if we are really getting the true facts? No one really knows, but at the very least we know that something did happen and the event was significant.

If you're still in high school then your books were chosen for you because they are politically correct. Same if you go to public college.

If you go to private college you stand a chance of getting an honest history text book.

Moral of the story -- if you want to find a good history book then go to a private college and browse their History reading list.

Good luck. Enjoy!
fromantle
Posts: 274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 3:15:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 4:03:07 PM, smelisox wrote:
This question has always fascinated me. Churchill has a famous quote, "History is written by the victors."

How much of our history is exaggerated or downright false? Turkey denies the armenian holocaust, the indian holocaust (over 2 billion dead) isn't talked about or taught in the UK and the Shoah is sometimes denied.

History is often about famous people who have steered events. Kings, Queens, Dictators, Leaders of all sorts. What I find more interesting is how the poor lived how the ordinary majority ran their lives. Historians naturally have a veiwpoint that is why we need to hear different points of view. Each nation has a tendancy to overstate its own contribution and hide any unpleasent incidents it has been involved in.