Changes

Jump to: navigation, search

Talk:Essay:Liberal Denials about History

26,498 bytes added, 01:35, 30 October 2012
/* point by point. */
==Virginia==
In what way does the naming of Virginia come under ''"The following truths about history are '''typically''' denied by liberal history textbooks:"''? In my extensive reading I have never come across a denial of Virginia being named after Elizabeth, and I am quite sure that many of these books would qualify as "liberal" in your eyes, Andy. Maybe some text book has denied it, but is it '''typical''' of the genre? May we have the names of some of these books please? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 17:20, 29 March 2009 (EDT)
 
== Triangular Trade ==
 
Why would liberals assert the existence of triangular trade if it didn't exist? I went to a Christian high school and I was taught about triangular trade. I'm not doubting, at all, the word of an actual history teacher, I'm genuinely curious what makes this a liberal myth, and if it maybe should be on the regular [[Essay:Greatest Myths of World History]] instead. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 17:52, 11 August 2009 (EDT)
 
:I have an open mind about this. But the "triangle" doesn't make sense because Africa was not a consumer of finished goods. The term "triangular trade" was an invention of modern historians; it was never used contemporaneously with the trade.
 
:Some people like [[deceit]] for its own sake. It seems to amuse them. Why did a phony runner enter the Munich stadium in 1972 as though he was leading the marathon? It accomplished nothing and robbed the real leader (Frank Shorter) of his moment of triumph, yet some people (often liberals) seem to get a thrill out of fooling others. It's quite possible someone amused himself with popularizing an absurd concept of "triangular trade."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:03, 11 August 2009 (EDT)
 
::Oh, I was just curious, I'm not claiming that this ISN'T liberal deceit. I've been looking into it for an hour or so and I understand now why it's untrue, which kind of makes me upset with my (private, Christian) school for teaching this. I was just wondering what made it ''liberal'' deceit.
 
::It does seem possible somebody made up the idea that Africa was consuming trade goods just to spread a falsehood, and attempting to portray an underdeveloped area as being more developed than it was, or more advanced than it was, reeks of multiculturalist revisionist history. Makes sense to call it liberal, then, in that sense. Thanks for explaining! [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 18:51, 11 August 2009 (EDT)
 
The idea that Africa was not consuming any trade goods at all is, of course, wrong. The crew of the trading ships did not (at least not in all instances) hunt down and catch the slaves themselves, but often bought them from African (or European, for that matter) slave traders, in Africa. These slave traders, of course, demanded something in return. Yes, the goods brought to Africa for the slaves were absurdly cheap compared to the human lives that they bought, but that's what trade is all about - you buy something at a low price, and sell it at a high. Perhaps it can be debated whether the goods brought the Africa were plentiful enough to in a normal context call it a Triangular Trade, but there is no reason to believe anyone is trying to deceive anyone; there are just various semantic opinions. The facts are that (a small amount of) goods from Europe were used to pay for slaves in Africa, and from the evidence I have seen, I personally don't find it absurd to call this a Triangular Trade. [[User:Crucialwood|Crucialwood]] 07:13, 12 August 2009 (EDT)
 
: The resistance by Crucialwood simply illustrates how difficult it is to eradicate a misleading liberal concept from education. "Triangular trade" is indisputably misleading. There was no significant trade of finished manufactured goods to Africa, and people at the time did not use that term. The term is a modern invention that misleads, and should be rejected. Yet Crucialwood insists on keeping it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:21, 12 August 2009 (EDT)
 
::I do not see how the term i misleading, almost no matter how little goods were traded to Africa. When I was taught of the triangular trade in school, I was presented with the following facts: Ships set off from Europe with a small amount of cheap goods, traded them for slaves in Africa, took the slaves to America and brought American goods back to Europe. Even if the goods in the first part of the triangle only consisted of a bottle of whiskey for 100 slaves, I can't see how the term "triangular trade" is misleading. Perhaps stating "there was significant trade of finished manufactured goods to Africa" is misleading (though I do not have enough evidence at this time to say even that for certain), but the term does not imply that.
 
::Also, maybe I am missing something, but I do not see why you insist on the term "finished manufactured goods". Does not any goods traded to Africa suffice? [[User:Crucialwood|Crucialwood]] 10:45, 12 August 2009 (EDT)
 
The point that's being missed here is that ''triangular trade'' implies that there was significant trade of finished manufactured goods to Africa. Trinkets are not "finished manufactured goods". Ships did move in a triangular course, but this does not mean that the 3 legs of the triangle were equal. Human life was terribly undervalued, both by the men who captured slaves in Africa and the European whites who bought those slaves and brought them to America. Note that treating people as chattel goods is '''not''' what trade is all about. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 11:12, 12 August 2009 (EDT)
 
:I would not say that point is being "missed", when I had addressed it quite specifically. Why does ''triangular trade'' imply significant trade of finished manufactured goods? Why does the three legs of the triangle have to be "equal" (which basically just means that WE set a subjective value for the trade goods, by today's standards; not taking into account that the goods were actually sufficient to buy humans in Africa, which, in a context of trade, would in fact imply they were "equal")? [[User:Crucialwood|Crucialwood]] 23:28, 12 August 2009 (EDT)
 
== Liberal rant ==
 
This isn't an essay, rather an intellectually shallow, and unsourced bullet list of jingoistic propositions.
 
Example:
''1. That "Yankee ingenuity" (American inventions) far surpassed the rest of the world, and brought great wealth to it''
 
This is a useless assertion,if not outright jingoistic, as "Yankee ingenuity" (please define this term more exactly if you can) took place over a broad time period of competing inventions from Europe. Additionally, many "Yankee inventions" were conceptualized by foreign nationals, see for example the machine gun, nuclear fission, rocket science (the last two being the key factors in American hegemonic rise in the late 20th century) Additionally, you really need to define Yankee and even American nation. A great argument can be made that it didn't exist until the cusp of the American revolution (if by Yankee innovation you're referring to early history).
 
''5. That hard work was the key to the success of many Americans.''
 
It's not an American trait purely, you're referring to the "Protestant Work Ethic", a Weberian Thesis.
See for example ,for an overview;
 
"A. Furnham, The Protestant Work Ethic: A Review of the Psychological Literature, European Journal of Social Psychology, 14:1, pp 87-104
 
''6. That most great Americans, from Abraham Lincoln to Thomas Edison, were homeschooled.''
 
Irrelevant in the context of the educational standards of the day. Public education was rare and basic, private tutelage was the method of education for upper class families since time immemorial until the modern advent of public education.
 
10. That Rhode Island and Thomas Jefferson, and their view of a "separation of church and state," had no role in the formation of the Constitution.
 
False, Citation needed before I'll accept that.
 
 
''12. That "anti-imperialism" movements against the United States were really communist or Muslim movements against Christianity, as in denying the Islamic basis for the Philippine insurgency around 1900.''
 
False, Ditto #10. Additionally,You need to prove the presence of Muslim movements against Christian's as a theme in colonial conflict,a great argument can be made that Islamic resistance movements are solely a product of decolonization. Finally, you need to prove that these communist or muslim resistance groups are fighting for Marx or Muhammad rather than masking anti-imperial or nationalist urges with a thin cover of ideology.
 
''15. That President FDR did not end the Great Depression, and may have prolonged it.''
 
Arguable, citation needed. Argument against see:
 
Gauti Eggertsson, Great Expectations and the End of the Depression, American Economic Review, 98:4,2008,pp 1476-1516
 
''17. That President Ronald Reagan's foreign policy was key to ending the Cold War.
''
False. Shows a gross misunderstanding of the full view, jingoistic. Author needs to review the literature on Perestroika, and Glasnost, as well as passive resistance within the Soviet Union . Should also review the role of Yeltsin, and the presidents of Ukraine and Belorussia in the immediate period pre-dissolution. Argument should be that Reagan played a crucial role rather than the key role in my opinion.
 
''18. That NO "triangular trade" existed in the 17th and 18th centuries with the New World[1]''
 
Irrelevant, straw man argument. Triangle trade is no longer explained as tangible trade routes, rather as a historical construction to understand flows of commerce and explanations for slavery and the first explosion of imperialism in the 17th century. Analogous to the Columbian exchange. Triangle trade not taken absolutely seriously as a tangible fact since '70;s.
 
See Gilman Ostrander, The making of the Traignular trade myth, The william and mary quarterly, 3:30:4, 1973, pp 635-644
 
== Reply ==
 
:REPLY:
 
:''1. That "Yankee ingenuity" (American inventions) far surpassed the rest of the world, and brought great wealth to it''
 
:This is a useless assertion,if not outright jingoistic, as "Yankee ingenuity" (please define this term more exactly if you can) took place over a broad time period of competing inventions from Europe. Additionally, many "Yankee inventions" were conceptualized by foreign nationals, see for example the machine gun, nuclear fission, rocket science (the last two being the key factors in American hegemonic rise in the late 20th century) Additionally, you really need to define Yankee and even American nation. A great argument can be made that it didn't exist until the cusp of the American revolution (if by Yankee innovation you're referring to early history).
 
::You're in absurd denial here. There's no disputing that a vast majority of wealth-enhancing inventions have been American.
:''5. That hard work was the key to the success of many Americans.''
 
:It's not an American trait purely, you're referring to the "Protestant Work Ethic", a Weberian Thesis.
See for example ,for an overview;
 
:"A. Furnham, The Protestant Work Ethic: A Review of the Psychological Literature, European Journal of Social Psychology, 14:1, pp 87-104
 
::It's an undeniable fact: Americans work harder than the rest of the world.
 
:''6. That most great Americans, from Abraham Lincoln to Thomas Edison, were homeschooled.''
 
:Irrelevant in the context of the educational standards of the day. Public education was rare and basic, private tutelage was the method of education for upper class families since time immemorial until the modern advent of public education.
 
::You're clueless. Try reading [[homeschooling]] with an open-mind and then let's discuss. Contributions by homeschoolers far surpass, in proportionate terms, contributions by people who went to public school.
 
::Before I waste time further on this discussion, can you indicate how you do on [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness|open-mindedness test]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:54, 10 December 2009 (EST)
 
I'll do an [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness|open-mindedness test]] when you discover the "liberal art of citation of sources".
 
"::It's an undeniable fact: Americans work harder than the rest of the world." - Apparently you've never seen a malaysian work camp, I'd love to see an American work that hard. 12 hour shifts, diet cap of 1200 calories a day (less than a slice of pizza) In fact, if you leave the United States and Europe
 
:I'd ask you to cite a source, but since you're banned you can't. I'd have to check the math, but I don't think 1200 calories a day is sufficient to sustain hard labor. Don't U.S. lumberjacks eat over 5,000 calories a day? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 09:07, 27 December 2009 (EST)
 
::In this user's absence, I'm happy to provide two sources for you: [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lab_hou_wor-labor-hours-worked this one] and [http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/2008/11/hours-worked-per-year.html this one]. It looks like Australians, Japanese, and Koreans do indeed work a little harder on average (Koreans much harder).
 
::While the Malaysian labor camps may not exactly have been germane to this point, he didn't pull it out of thin air. A google search revealed [http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/malaysia/24563-human-trafficking-malaysians-extort-thais-ignore this] and [http://209.85.135.132/search?q=cache:_rwpDZ6oTS8J:www.kanlungan.ngo.ph/Resources/Malaysia_Sic%2520Country.pdf+malaysian+workers+underfed&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk this] detailing labor camp workers being underfed. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 14:22, 27 December 2009 (EST)
 
== "Liberal Response" ==
 
You're in absurd denial here. There's no disputing that a vast majority of wealth-enhancing inventions have been American.
1] Ad Hominem, but I did it too, so it's acceptable in the context
2]"Ridiculous fallacy" - it's ridiculous to you, so you brush it off
3]"correlation doesnt lead to causation" - Because a lot of inventions are from the United States, it doesn't mean that the vast majority are, doesn't mean that they're invented by Americans, doesn't mean it's a specific American trait , to innovate.
 
"::It's an undeniable fact: Americans work harder than the rest of the world." -
 
Apparently you've never seen a malaysian work camp, I'd love to see an American work that hard. 12 hour shifts, diet cap of 1200 calories a day (less than a slice of pizza) By rest of the world you mean Europe, which is true, European workers are lazy socialists, but take a job with a chinese labourer or a korean , even a japanese guy, much harder workers than the average American
 
1] Undeniable fact- can't remember which logical fallacy that is, but it's a major one. All facts are deniable, and in this case easily.
2] Vast generalisation, needs proof.
 
You're clueless. Try reading [[homeschooling]] with an open-mind and then let's discuss. Contributions by homeschoolers far surpass, in proportionate terms, contributions by people who went to public school.
 
1]Ad hominen
2]didn't mention homeschooling, mentioned the historical context of Thomas Jefferson and Abe Lincoln. you're homeschooling program has no correlation with the 19th century "home schooling". The contexts and curriculum are quite different. You're welcome to disagree, let's see the sources.
 
::Before I waste time further on this discussion, can you indicate how you do on [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness|open-mindedness test]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:54, 10 December 2009 (EST)
 
I'll do an [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness|open-mindedness test]] when you discover the "liberal art of citation of sources". I've seen no counter poiunts here except pointless logical fallacies.
 
::You still won't admit that the vast majority of inventions have been American? Look, you have free will to deny basic facts, but your denial is astounding.
 
::Re: homeschooling, people and homeschooling were not that different 150 years ago. Moreover, you seem to confuse cause with effect. The point is about the positive effect of homeschooling, regardless of the motivation. I realize that Germany bans homeschooling and England is over-regulating it, but it remains productive at a far greater level than its percentages. And this has always been true, as numerous examples [[homeschooling|here]] illustrate.
 
::If you were genuinely interested in logic, then you'd spend some time reading or translating the Bible, the most logical book of all. But I suspect you're more interested in trying to reject the Bible than giving it equal time in your activities. Am I right?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:11, 16 December 2009 (EST)
 
Now that was a better point, which I can concede on. As per the bible, I'm [[Plymouth Brethren]], rejecting the bible isn't in my "Modus Operandi".--[[User:JeffD|JeffD]] 22:01, 18 December 2009 (EST)
 
:Interesting. We seem to have quite an entry on that denomination.
 
:I don't mean to single you out. There seem to be many people who read everything ''except'' the most logical book of all, the Bible. Lots of people even claim to be well-read yet complete avoid and even censor this most influential and most widely read book of all. Objectively, such an approach is ... not logical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:45, 18 December 2009 (EST)
 
== Communism ==
 
The fact that the McCarthy article was featured on the main page recently got me to thinking: liberals, in general, try to gloss over the fact that there was good reason for people to be concerned about the threat posed by Communism. Public schools will teach the "Red Scares," for example, but seldom mention the reasons behind the concern--for instance, the 1919 bombing attacks against major American industrialists and government officials.
 
Should the fact that liberals deny that Communism was a serious threat be included? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:25, 16 December 2009 (EST)
 
 
 
I'm just reading "48 Liberal Lies about American History" now, and I bet I'll be able to add a whole bunch of stuff to this page soon! See the table of contents [http://books.google.com/books?id=A3Muu2TsOioC&dq=48+Liberal+Lies+About+American+History&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=QA7LddEssH&sig=lepXhrknDTwEN9HCN8AwB-RcOA8&hl=en&ei=qWAxS4aQBoPAsQP4yoG7BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CCYQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=&f=false here]. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:16, 22 December 2009 (EST)
 
 
== One question ==
 
Guys, let's face it. There's (as of... Now) three notes on this page, and only one reference to another source (which I personally find a bit suspect, but that might just be me...)
 
Umm... That means there's a lot of unsourced claims where it should be at least 72 sources (one that cite that it is something that liberals deny (or claim) about history, and one to point out why it's wrong)
 
Well anyway... Have fun :) [[User:SaWi|SaWi]] 16:11, 1 March 2011 (EST)
 
== Thomas Jefferson ==
 
So he's listed as being a failure and an unsuccessful president, and had little to do with the Declaration of Independence. However, the article for him on Conservapedia says he had a successful first term as president, followed by a poor 2nd term, and the [[Declaration of Independence]] article says:
<blockquote>
Early drafts [of the Declaration] exist dating to June 1776.[3] Jefferson's colleagues Benjamin Franklin and Adams made small changes in his draft text and Congress made more. The finished document, which both declared independence and proclaimed a philosophy of government, '''was singly and peculiarly Jefferson's.'''
</blockquote>
 
So at least the part about the Declaration of Independence should be removed, or the articles changed to reflect his small role in the Declaration. --[[User:MarkN85|MarkN85]] 14:30, 28 April 2011 (EDT)
 
== Rubbish ==
 
90% of the stuff on this page is unsourced rubbish. either the 'liberal historians' don't deny whatever the allegation is, or else the allegation is not true. There is also some stuff that's pretty subjective, so while the interpretation that this article gives is valid, it does not mean that competing allegations are false. [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 20:39, 17 October 2012 (EDT)
 
== colonialism ==
 
colonialism was universally good? Have you read about the Belgian Congo? How about the war for Algerian independence? What was the native population of North America before colonisation and what was it afterwards? How did they live then, and how do they live now? Are there African countries that are better off now than they were before they were colonised? I think colonialism is definitely good for a number of people in the colonising country, it is usually good for the colonising government, but it tends to be quite bad for the native population. [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 00:03, 22 October 2012 (EDT)
 
== point by point. ==
 
much as it pains me to have to even engage with this stuff I will deal with most of the points that I actually know about. (I mostly won't use sources as that would take hours but if you have a specific objection then I will find one.)
 
1. subjective and jingoistic if not actually false.
 
2. Maybe. This one is again pretty subjective, but has some merit. There would be a lot of textbooks that agree with you though.
 
3. There are two points here. for the first one, I don't think that textbooks do deny that there were non-racist reasons to be against immigration. Second point I don't know enough about, but the North's larger population (a result of immigration) surely had some impact on the war.
 
4. I don't think that this is really a distortion, textbooks just have a tendency to focus on the positive elements of unions, such as the advances in workers rights that they won. And was the violence really so 'senseless'? particularly in the nineteenth century the working conditions were in fact abysmal, and I believe that you will find that a large proportion of the violence in labour conflicts was initiated by the employers or police trying to break up strikers (an american example of some of the worse violence would I think be in 1914, ludlow, colorado?) anyway again it's quite a subjective issue of how much weight to put on different interpretations.
 
5. Eh? Find me a book that denies this.
 
6. there were no public schools so this doesn't even need to be mentioned (I'm sure that specific biographies would mention how they were educated)
 
7,8,9,10. Too american for me to comment.
 
11. What history books say that? Perhaps they would say that Reagan was the beginning of a 'New Conservatism' or something but they don't say that there were no conservatives prior to that date.
 
12. The Philippine rebellion against the US was led by anti-imperialist intellectuals, mostly Catholics and while the Moro certainly supported the war, and were some of the last holding out, the majority of the Philippine manpower was Roman Catholic or following some syncretic version (see the Pulahan for instance). I would be very surprised if a majority-Catholic movement could be characterized as being 'against Christianity'
 
13. When has this been denied, and what's 'liberal' about that?
 
14. Ditto.
 
15. Subjective. Others would say that his policies did help.
 
16. I don't really know enough about this or the historiography around it.
 
17. May be true. most historians would I think put more emphasis on other factors.
 
18. Oh, so slave traders were just given slaves for free? the version of the triangle trade that appears in school textbooks may be an over-simplification, but it is a valid historical model.
 
19. This one is somewhat more valid. However you will find a number of history books that agree with this, and a number of occasions where the Catholic church was opposed to new science.
 
20. I have a more specific comment above. I don't agree with the premise of this. For instance, the bit about democracy, when in most cases the native population wanted independence, but the colonising power refused to grant it. I will say that I do find it ironic when Americans promote imperialism seeing as their own country is the result of an anti-imperialist revolt. (You did engage in a lot of colonialism on your own though)
 
21. Ha ha. lol.
 
22. Subjective.
 
General bias. this section is almost completely subjective and very vague.
 
1. Not anymore. the 'great men' theory of history is not used much any more. There is a lot more emphasis on social history, or greater trends that lead to events.
 
2. Are they really more important?
 
3. what is the 'true' importance of popularity?
 
4. How much significance is 'really' warranted by presidential elections?
 
5. Have they? A lot of this depends on your definition of 'conservative'.
 
6. when have textbooks ever done this? I don't think any do.
 
Specific truths.
 
1. correlation does not imply causation. I read a couple of posts defending this point, and they are predicated on the church always opposing slavery. This unfortunately was not true, the southern churches were great supporters of slavery.
 
3. In the broader sense yes, but it is not really something significant enough to be mentioned. While talking about medieval Europe chivalry in the traditional sense would be mentioned.
 
5. What about the working classes? And 'the world' is certainly an overstatement.
 
6. I think most textbooks would acknowledge this if they mentioned anything about education. I'm sure I've seen it a number of places.
 
7. This is a genuine difference in interpretation. Few historians would agree that atheism was the cause. This is an actual disagreement.
 
8. don't really know whether american books would mention this or not. no comment.
 
9. Very few people would agree that Lenin oppressed the russians 'as thoroughly as Stalin', and I would say that this is pretty subjective.
 
10. Nazi's are almost uniformly described as right wing. They were extreme nationalists and favoured capitalism. The number of people who disagree is very small, and they are almost universally American, and very recent.
 
11. What textbooks deny this? All the ones that I've ever read mention it, and about how Lincoln was the first Republican president and all that.
 
12. Ok, I'd never heard of that, so maybe that one is true.
 
If no one objects, I will take out some of the more ridiculous bits. Thanks, [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 03:10, 22 October 2012 (EDT)
 
And now there is a new point.
 
13. see 21. and add 'rotflol' and also the spelling's atrocious. [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 09:55, 22 October 2012 (EDT)
 
And one i forgot to General bias.
 
23. patently false. The Crusades, The reconquista, the Russian conquest of siberia, British India, etc., etc. etc. [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 10:20, 22 October 2012 (EDT)
 
:It appears that the person who added that bit is Dutch. So I will also mention the Dutch conquest of Indonesia, prince Diponegoro and all of that. [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 16:38, 22 October 2012 (EDT)
SkipCaptcha, edit
432
edits