Institutional Brainwashing

Originally posted by FSBlueApocalypse
(Note, I deleted the listed instances cause I would have gone over the character limit)
If that's the explanation your teacher gave you then they deserve to be fired. Columbus did know well that the Earth was round. He set sail to find an alternate trade route to Asia, as in that time you had to sail around Africa to get to India. Most history classes these days at least mention the Vikings landing in New Foundland, as well as mention there is evidence of others. The reason Columbus is considered the "Discoverer" of the West is because he was the first to make sure people knew about it.

I made sure to note that Columbus knew the earth was round, as most educated people since the Greeks have known.

This is the example of Euro-centric behavior I was talking about though. Eric the Red is potentially the first European to reach North America by landing in Greenland. (In fact, since he was in a quasi exile from another place he discovered, Iceland, the island is called Greenland because he sent message back saying he had found Green Land. No it wasn't green, but he wanted people to sing praises of him).

Leif Errickson, son of Erick The Red, continued further west later, and landed in Canada.

Columbus was by all accounts, was potentially the worst navigator of all time. but I won't go into that here...

Originally posted by FSBlueApocalypse
First part is correct, but the explanation that follows is awful

Very nice quote mine there of Lincoln. During the time of Lincoln-Douglas debates, the Republican party adopted a moderate position on slavery. It would allow the South to keep it but not allow it to spread to other territories. That quote was Lincoln appealing to Pro-slavery people, or in other words, appealing to the opposite demographic, you know something politicians have done since the beginning of time.

While Lincoln entered the Civil War to preserve the country, he grew to see it as a symbolic struggle against slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation was the culmination of that.

The last part is either absurd or a blatant lie. Of the 23 states that were part of the Union at the time of the Civil War, all but 5 had abolished slavery decades earlier.

Can I see supporting evidence?

All the evidence i've seen has pointed to the fact that even though Lincoln did not like slavery, he did not want to do anything to change the status quo.

He recognized slavery as evil, and spoke out against the ownership of fellow human beings, but did not want to make the move to abolish slavery outright.

In fact, the idea of emancipating the slaves was not even originally his idea, it was first proposed by Thaddeus Stevens of PA in early 1862. He originally brought the idea of emancipation onto the house floor. The idea was to free the slaves who's owners "engaged in rebellion with the united states government".

Originally posted by nj2day

Can I see supporting evidence?

All the evidence i've seen has pointed to the fact that even though Lincoln did not like slavery, he did not want to do anything to change the status quo.

He recognized slavery as evil, and spoke out against the ownership of fellow human beings, but did not want to make the move to abolish slavery outright.

In fact, the idea of emancipating the slaves was not even originally his idea, it was first proposed by Thaddeus Stevens of PA in early 1862. He originally brought the idea of emancipation onto the house floor. The idea was to free the slaves who's owners "engaged in rebellion with the united states government".

The status quo as in the usual method at the time of admitting one "Free" state and one "Slave" state at the time or abolishing slavery all together? Lincoln believed by outlawing slavery in the territories, the overabundance of free states vs slave states would eventually make slavery illegal regardless. Steven's proposal failed. The Emancipation Proclamation was done using Lincoln's powers as Commander-In-Chief, which is why the 13th amendment was later needed.
www.historynow.org...


[edit on 19-10-2008 by FSBlueApocalypse]

Originally posted by nj2day
This is the example of Euro-centric behavior I was talking about though. Eric the Red is potentially the first European to reach North America by landing in Greenland. (In fact, since he was in a quasi exile from another place he discovered, Iceland, the island is called Greenland because he sent message back saying he had found Green Land. No it wasn't green, but he wanted people to sing praises of him).

Leif Errickson, son of Erick The Red, continued further west later, and landed in Canada.

Columbus was by all accounts, was potentially the worst navigator of all time. but I won't go into that here...

Which is a rebuttal to anything I said how? My World History class in 7th grade mentioned Leif Erikson. The reason Columbus is considered the "Discoverer" of the West is because it affected all of Europe. Who knew about Leif Erikson's discovery originally? A small localized population on both sides of the Atlantic. When Columbus found it, two entire continents would become forever linked.

Excellent thread, OP, both in concept and execution.

Thanks also to FSBlueApocalypse for adding to the quality of the information on offer.

nj2day, please don't stop posting your other examples. This is all terribly interesting.

Lying to children isn't nice, but schoolbooks in many, probably most countries are full of nationalist rhetoric and praise of the established order. It's hard to prevent - isn't it a truism that the winning side gets to write the history books? Besides, it is precisely the task of education to produce loyal, capable citizens and a certain amount of indoctrination - brainwashing, if you like - goes with this as a matter of course.

Also, nations are myths. Nation-states exist in reality; nations, only in the mind. It is like the relationship between a product, which is made in a factory and is bought off a shelf, and a brand, which exists only in the minds of consumers. Since this is the case, it is highly unlikely that national myths will cleave perfectly to material reality. Their makers are not historians but political leaders, writers, artists and others normally concerned less with truth than with some point they are eager to make. The historian's job - which you are doing admirably well in this thread - is to make sure that somehow, somewhere, the truth is recorded and remembered.

None of this is to excuse, merely to explain.