Exaggerated History

[Buffy]

Consider the following whimsical example: “200 years of ‘Buffy the Vampire Slayer’” (1992, 1997-2003).

I was going to let this one slide, but if Q is going to drag it out: Okay, so I fudge my age some times, but its usually in the *other* direction! I'm no where near 200!

 

Well Craig's old enough to know who David Grisman is,

Buffy

[sciencegirl94]

I agree. Some people exeggerate history too much.

 

Like for example, in school we learn that the EUROPEAN people (note, that they say EUROPEAN instead of Spanish, Portugese, etc.) went to South America, and killed many Native Americans. But, they forget to say that 'other European people' (in this case the Brits, who later became AMERICANS, who are now the people teaching these things) went to North America and killed A LOT MORE NATIVE AMERICAN, than the 'Europeans' did in South America. In South America the different kinds of people, natives, blacks, and whites mixed, the 'Europeans' were much 'nicer' to the Native Americans than the 'other Europeans' were in North America.

 

History is about details. So I don't think that simplifying them, or exaggareting them is a good thing.

 

No wonder some people think that there is a language called 'European'...

 

I would write more but my siser wants to play on the computer...

:shrug:

[LaurieAG]

So my question is, where does the "400 years of slavery" come from? What is the purpose of exaggerating historical facts such as this one? Doesn't it serve to build distrust of the historical institutions that perpetuate that information, opening the door for legitimizing arguments like holocaust denial?

Bill

 

Hello TheBigDog,

 

One of the institutions you refer to is the National Geographic Society. Around 4-5 years ago it had an article on slavery where the US had very few slaves percentage wise (per capita) but had one of the highest number of slaves as any other country in the world. Unfortunately, for your case, the National Geographic Society doesn't legitimise holocaust denial.

[Qfwfq]

Unfortunately, for your case, the National Geographic Society doesn't legitimise holocaust denial.

Somewhat a non-sequitur. It remains that, if history books tell a lie, some will use it as an excuse to claim other things are lies. It is somewhat like suggesting that, because NG doesn't do something, therefore nobody will. Unfortunately, many people will fall for such things.

[LaurieAG]

Somewhat a non-sequitur. It remains that, if history books tell a lie, some will use it as an excuse to claim other things are lies. It is somewhat like suggesting that, because NG doesn't do something, therefore nobody will. Unfortunately, many people will fall for such things.

 

Hello Q,

 

You do have a point. So many things these days, particularly political messages, are couched in complex 'not' cases and most people don't seem to realise that the headline is often in conflict to what the content actually says and means.