Historians write history.
as long as the winners approve of what the historian writes
1 Like
Not exactly true. That would be propaganda and those who write it would not be historians. People who say that the winners write history donāt understand how history actually works.
Yeah, well the are the same people that brought us zero cal. sweeteners that suck, zero cal. fats that make you shit yourself, so it just follows that they have created a godless religion that makes people idiots.
1 Like
The Advent of the internet changes much, but throughout most of history the winner was able to burn documents, books, and anything else they didnāt like. As a result history was effectively filtered by the winners for quite a while before people could dig deep enough to find what had been buried
I wonder how many tribes we donāt know ever existed, simply because they didnāt survive?
4 Likes
Every single biography written about George Washington was essentially a hagiography up until more recent times.
He was actually a piss poor general (lost nearly every battle he was in command of). He murdered a group of diplomatic French soldiers in cold blood, which started a war. He cheated his soldiers out of land they were promised. Etcā¦
Thatās just one example. Plus the thrust of that saying is that throughout history the losers donāt get to shape the narrative if they lose a war.
3 Likes
Ahem.
2 Likes
Now I know why even my mom takes whatever side my wife is on.
4 Likes
ā¦ Thatās what the losers want you to think
Think about this ā¦ there wasnāt a written Greek language until about 700 bc that had been deciphered ā¦ there are 2 types of proto-Greek that hasnāt been deciphered.
Much of the ancient world was full of tribes kingdoms and civilizations that had no written language (that survived if they did) and barely any mention (if at all) by those that did ā¦ just look at ancient sites like Stonghenge and Gobekli Tepe ā¦ essentially the earliest written language was Sumerian that we know of ā¦ everything else is just bones and artifacts from daily living over millennia
2 Likes
Not particularly virtue in the Southās history. But there are a few angles about the civil war that donāt get coverage for sure.
-
The British empire abolished slavery with near zero bloodshed earlier in the 1800s. They paid slave owners for their slaves and that was that. We had to kill roughly 600k people.
-
The South seceded over equal parts slavery and tariffs. They imported most of their goods due to lack of industrialization. The high federal tariffs were paid almost entirely by the south and the proceeds were spent in mostly in the north. This only a few generations after āno taxation without representationā.
-
The emancipation proclamation was more about hurting the seceded south than freeing slaves, sort of like a modern day sanction on a bad actor state like Iran. Thereās dozens of Lincoln quotes on this (one below supporting a proposed constitutional amendment making slavery permanent before his innauguration). He made abundantly clear he cared more about preserving the union than freeing slaves.
-
Many abolitionists supported secession. If the south and north were different nations then the slaves who escaped north would be free and not returned to the south under federal law.
So while the nobl-er āstates rightsā and āanti federal powerā was cooked up a bit later to excuse the secession, the south was done raw by taxes and tariffs and outvoted in Congress due to lower population. The American civil war was in part an incredibly bloody tax protest and a debate over slavery. Not as clean cut as public education makes out.
"I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution ā which amendment, however, I have not seen ā has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service ā¦ holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable. "
http://www.abrahamlincolnsclassroom.org/abraham-lincoln-in-depth/abraham-lincoln-and-the-tariff/
Someoneās been reading America Before by Graham Hancock. He reports on such cool stuff thatās actually fact. Like 13k year old australasian DNA in the Amazon and super old earthworks theyāre finding under the Amazon with radar and lazers etcā¦
Then he goes on to fantasize about Egyptians moving megaliths with psychic powers. Thatās where I get off the train lol.
1 Like
because we all know how the average Joe and Joesephine Schmo love them some historical nuanceā¦
i canāt NOT listen to a Joe Rogan podcast when he has Graham Hancock on - even though I know heās just shilling his latest book. Heās a super interesting guy
I read 1491 by Charles Mann and he goes into similar things about Pre-Columbian Americas and the civilizations that inhabited them.
Another āmysteryā I find fascinating that destroyed most of mediterranean civilizations around 1200 BC was something to do with āSea peopleā ā¦ the book 1177 BC: the Year Civilization Collapsed is pretty interesting as well
1 Like
This is making my head spin today. Paying .57% multiple times over on all of my projects.
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/new-oregon-gross-receipts-tax-presents-55330/
2 Likes
Ah the VAT by a different name. Much easier to raise taxes when they can hide them where consumers never see them.
In before Oregon starts an investigatory committee on why new housing is unaffordable.
2 Likes
Kate Brown: āWhat if we call it a CAT, instead of VAT?! Do you think theyāll notice?ā
4 Likes
They probably modelled it after Ohio because we have breathtakingly low real estate costs.
Wait til they realize cost of living doesnāt work the same in every state
4 Likes
Thatās because humans emigrated from the rust belt for a long time (which of course you know). Thst would be hilarious if that was really a driving factor in their decision.
1 Like
Do you think CAT stands for Cost Adding Tax? I donāt see any Valueā¦