Can you provide examples from your daughter's book first, please?

While we are waiting for the OP to do as you requested, I have a question for you: what is the oldest book you have read, with your own eyes? If it is less than 200 years (as is the case for most of us), why do you take that 'thousands of years of history' on faith?

When I lived in Paris & frequented Shakespeare & Company and got to know the (now late) owner, I did reach through some of the books in the rare book room that were older than 200 years, but they were all fiction, as I recall.

The oldest book I own is the second volume of the Freemasonry Dictionary, from the early 1910s.

Ooh? What's the most interesting thing you learned from the Freemasonry dictionary?

Honestly, it was kind of a letdown. I didn't really spend all that much time in it. I should go back for more.

This thread led me to check how old the oldest book I own is. I have some old spelling and grammar texts from 1886, but the oldest one is a "history" book.

Published 1883. Error's Chains: How Forged and Broken. A complete, graphic, and comparative history of the many strange beliefs, superstitious practices, domestic peculiarities, sacred writings, systems of philosophy, legends and traditions, customs and habits of mankind throughout the world, ancient and modern.

"From authentic and trustworthy authorities"

I'm sharing a few pictures because I think some people on this sub might get a kick out of the book.

This!

why do you take that 'thousands of years of history' on faith?

Because books tear apart over time and it's hard to pull a fast one with so many different publishers out there.

Happens all the time - history is written by the victors. Just check out any grade school textbook on Columbus...

Give it a couple more time and we'll learn the nazis lost in europe but then infiltrated the us gov, should be fun times ^{^}

Operation paperclip. Good times.

gotta combine it with operation highjump and washington DC 1952 ufo sightings to complete the picture tho!

It really is a hard piece to swallow though, I hope we get some concrete evidence on that and not just dot connecting

Bring me to light here guys. What's all this? Even if just in bullet form please

What follows has yet to be 100% proven but seems to appear likely.

1. Hitler lost in Europe, "suicided" himself to escape.
2. Most likely went to argentina where he had friends
3. Made his way to antarctica where he had bases and cool crafts he made based on occult knowledge found in antarctica
4. FBI looked for him
5. Found him and launched Operation Highjump, 4.7k troops, 13 battleships, 33 warplanes for a science research
6. Byrd is apparently on the record on his way back saying the enemy had crafts that could fly pole to pole in an instant. They got fucked.
7. Between then and 52, no idea what they did
8. Washington DC 52, near the white house, a pack of UFOs are spotted and they are there for quite a while, got blamed on military or some shit

Now we could speculate those UFOs were not alien but the guys coming from Antarctica.

Damn. That's eye opening

I am concerned that, as a parent, you can't spell August...

I am concerned that, as a "thinker", you seemed to be concerned with stupid spelling mistakes and not even addressing the content of the comment.

I'll have more to say once OP posts the examples from the book... until then... their spelling is the only thing I can comment on.

The OP is presumably a single person, so "his or her spelling..." would be correct. Your ellipses usage is questionable, but this is an informal forum, of course.

This is a logical fallacy that he is using to run you around. Ignore this objection.

you better delete your comment

Removed. Rule 10.

Warning, further violations may result in a ban.

so I don't have that book

oh course you don't, so concerned about things missing it didn't occur to to you not note anything in particular or be able to offer proof of your claim.

I haven't had a history class in a decade.

r/conspiracy members need not flail the proverbial arm of whine. A quick search yields the controversy over the history of the Confederacy: http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2015/07/13/421744763/how-textbooks-can-teach-different-versions-of-history

“He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.” George Orwell, 1984.

They've been doing this all along. They just wait long enough to change the record drastically that the generation who recalls the truth is dead and gone, but we can track the small changes over the course of just a couple decades.

Alot of times they change it right before our own eyes

pretty much everything

Not so much erased, perhaps, but it definitely seems overlooked: https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/1q7duh/orwell_on_anarchism/ I don't remember seeing anything like that on the History (deleted) Channel or many major texts. They will of course let us know, superficially, about some of the things Orwell may have been critical of but not go to deeply into what he was for.

"As far as my purely personal preferences went I would have liked to join the Anarchists." George Orwell - Homage to Catalonia

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

I wonder why Orwell was required reading when I went to school?

In high school you mean?

During the cold war his fictional work 1984 was required. Animal Farm was also popular. I asked an educator once, who was approaching retirement age, if 1984 was still required reading. She replied "no' and explained because the Cold War was over. Interesting statement I thought. So there may have been a selected approach regarding Orwell.

Was this an attempt on your part to rebuke the idea that some of Orwell's writing, for whatever reason, may have been overlooked either by the academe or the mass media? I don't recall any academics going deep into Orwell's socialist politics. Particularly his observations in Spain.

Which of his works were required reading in your school? And during what era? And think of when you hear the term "Orwellian" used by the mass media. What ideas or images does it conjure up?

8th Grade 1984

1984 was required reading when I graduated in 06 and for my brother in law who graduated this month.

That's good. And this year it's reached the best sellers list. But what of Orwell's non-fiction?

Let me suggest Down and Out in Paris and London as it is a short but interesting read. It is also non-fiction.

BTW, what did you think of Animal Farm?

Animal Farm was a criticism of Stalinism.

Orwell remained a devout socialist, though. He was quite impressed by workers' control as he witnesses in Spain:

"The Anarchists were still in virtual control of Catalonia and the revolution was still in full swing. To anyone who had been there since the beginning it probably seemed even in December or January that the revolutionary period was ending; but when one came straight from England the aspect of Barcelona was something startling and overwhelming. It was the first time that I had ever been in a town where the working class was in the saddle...There was no unemployment, and the price of living was still extremely low; you saw very few conspicuously destitute people, and no beggars except the gypsies. Above all, there was a belief in the revolution and the future, a feeling of having suddenly emerged into an era of equality and freedom. Human beings were trying to behave as human beings and not as cogs in the capitalist machine. In the barbers' shops were Anarchist notices (the barbers were mostly Anarchists) solemnly explaining that barbers were no longer slaves." George Orwell - Homage to Catalonia

It was also the betrayal of the anarchists and other workers' movements (including the POUM militia that Orwell belonged to) by the Spanish Republican forces and their Bolshevik allies that appalled Orwell.

That quote is taken so out of context, and the post you link to does that with more to have it match their views. Read the book!

It's well known that he was for socialist democracy tho.

Ah, you’ve read it then? I should not have to tell you that the particular quote you used definitely needs context!

I take it all as more incidental to his being there. He went to fight the facists and it so happened that the factions opposed were radical. His observations are of something that was temporary, transitional, and different and largely observations more than ideals, though many would be common to preferences he expresses elsewhere. I’m fairly ignorant when it comes to political theory but I think I’m be right in saying that there are degrees of socialism when it comes to social democracy?

I thought you were the person I replied to.

I'd just be repeating the words of better men and women. My take is the usual, it's a good allegory.

But I am glad you mention it. I've not re-read it in such a long time, and not since I read Homage to Catalonia amongst others. Perhaps I'll find something more next time.

I have read the book otherwise I wouldn't know of the many passages that were posted.

As for the quote, are you familiar with the context? Orwell wanted to return to the frontlines but wasn't interested in reenlisting into the POUM militia, and so preferred the anarchist as they did (as the quotes illustrate) seem to make a strong impression on him.

There have been brief references in literature, and even in an article in The Economist a couple of years ago, to Orwell's socialist politics. But I do not recall any elaboration on those views. Not even definitive mention of his experiences in Spain. Just a brief remarks amounting to "...oh he was a socialist" vein.

In fact, there seems to be some confusion out there about Orwell. In one forum someone asked if Orwell had been a fascist! I mean come on?

Little fact left out of history as taught to our children by Cultural Marxists: The West is the only civilization in human history to ban slavery as a moral evil.

But our children are being taught [erroneously] that not only did the West NOT ban it, but that they started it.

Fact: There are more slaves in 2017 than in 1860 . . . mostly in national like Saudi Arabia, Sudan, etc. Countries that engaged in slavery millennia before the West, never banned it, and still engage in it today.

But the history books aimed toward our children are manipulative when it comes to this documented reality.

Good read!

Neither India nor Persia pre Islam had slavery while Greece and Rome, the contemporary West, did.

India has had 9,000 years of a caste system based on color. In fact, the word we translate as "caste" comes from "varna," which means: "Color".

Indo-Europeans conquered the subcontinent (bringing DNA haplogroup R1a into the region). But when they flooded down into India it wasn't uninhabited. It was densely populated with dark-skinned austroloid and veddoid populations.

The conquerors imposed a caste system on the conquered. And it's lasted for 9,000 years.

Ethnological tutorial: Indian (of Indo-European descent) at the top of the caste system:

9000

Lawl. You're going to place the caste system before agriculture even developed in the subcontinent?

As for the caste system, it was no different from the relationship different classes had in all of the world. Varna translates very loosely into colour and, in case you need proof, look at the colour of skin of Krishna or Draupadi, both Kshatriya. The entire Aryan invasion theory is a pseudo scientific hogwash, with literally no proof of it not being a migration and if you look at the accounts of Megasthenes, you'll see him talk about how free Indian society was.

Learn genetics.

The population structure of the subcontinent is just about the most well-documented phenomenon in history. We have literary sources, linguistic sources, archaeological sources and genetic sources . . . and they all create one unified picture of Population A coming into India from the North (and bringing European genetic haplogroups and languages with them), whereupon they encountered Population B: who all have Dravidian languages and DNA haplogroup M, linking them to Southeast Asia and Australia.

See this article, as an example: http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2009/09/24/2695631.htm

Quote:

good post.

i just recently found out about cultural marxism.... this shit is insidious.

The vast majority of "history" (as presented by the Establishment, Hollywood, etc) is total fiction. As just one example, the history of WW2 is totally falsified and suppressed -- including the true cause of the war and what happened. The supposed "holocaust" of jews is a total lie. The real genocide and hugely suppressed truth was that at least 15 million ethnic Germans were deliberately mass murdered (and millions of German women mass raped) AFTER the war was over -- by the Soviets and other Allies.

flux

Find a history book written before 1950 and learn the true reasons for the US civil war.

Look, every culture whitewashes it's history. Most everyone who has survived to modern times is a descendent of people who probably got pretty savage at times. No one want to remember their heroes as the monsters they sometimes were. Part of this is how we expect history to be, a relentless march of progress, always forward, always better then before. But that's not how life works. People and nations fall for on their faces sometimes. But it's embarrassing to remember your mistakes. Especially if you are positing things like manifest destiny and American exceptionalism. Printing and teaching about our many mistakes erodes the confidence we have in our cultures. (This isn't limited to US history, out just happens to be one of the topics covered in the book mentioned below. As a Canadian I can attest we destroyed our Indians just as throughly as the US did. Just in a different way. Less bloody, but maybe more sadistic) If you are catching this in your daughters textbooks, what would your print have found in your texts that they would have disagreed with.
I would very highly recommend a book called "Lies My Teacher Told Me" by James W. Loewen. It highlights many, many straight up lies about American history.

There is a documentary on how the Texas School Board basically decides what goes into most of the nations textbooks because they order so many the publishers follow whatever they want, or something like that. Yes - the information, especially history and social sciences, is heavily redacted and influenced to point to certain conclusions. Each word is chosen carefully, and what you saw was no accident.

There's a book on this called: "Lies my history teacher told me"

How about the big cover up of the giants in North America!! The Smithsonian was even guilty of burning the evidence/artifacts and the giant bones.

Do you have a link for that claim re: Smithsonian destroying that evidence? I've never heard that before - curious what the whole story is.

Earlier this week, an archaeology student posted this which kinda shocked me since it's known human ancestors and not something like "giants in the earth" or aliens.

History, as they say, is written by the victors, not the vanquished, even though the losers may have actually been "the good guys" after all was said and done.

The Romans utterly destroyed any civilizations that might have been looked upon more favorably than their own in addition to wiping out the culture and languages of all the people they conquered and enslaved.

They certainly understood the way that kind of history works and just as certainly wrote more of it that was nothing if not self-serving and self aggrandising.

The Greeks were far more generous when it came to respecting their various foes and adversaries, perhaps due to their own infighting and shifting alliances among themselves, or maybe it was because the greater the foe you manage to overcome looks the greater your own prowess and greatness almost has to be by comparison.

But history isn't actually "human history" because it's not about the life and times of any ordinary human beings throughout the centuries but mainly about no more than a dozen or so ruthless aristocratic families going back all the way to Rome and Venice who eventually became the absolute monarchs of Europe right up until the 1900's. A similar familial situation also existed among most of the eastern potentates and rajas.

And as everyone should know the majority of elite US families and prominent politicians are either descended from or else connected to many of those aristocratic families by marriage.

At the end of the day it's all the ordinary people that have been conquered or subjugated by those ruling elites in one way or another who are the losers whose struggles and efforts to preserve themselves and what they valued most against the ambitions of those elites and elitists that has never been written about or studied.

Just watch two documentaries and you'll doubt a lot of what you absorbed in public school.

The Century of the Self

and

The Money Masters.

When I lived in Paris & frequented Shakespeare & Company and got to know the (now late) owner, I did reach through some of the books in the rare book room that were older than 200 years, but they were all fiction, as I recall.

The oldest book I own is the second volume of the Freemasonry Dictionary, from the early 1910s.

This!

why do you take that 'thousands of years of history' on faith?

Because books tear apart over time and it's hard to pull a fast one with so many different publishers out there.