Not Always Finding The Truth Or Facts In American History

In starting this topic I believe that before 1 discusses any topic it is always wise to define the subject one is discussing, therefore according to this thought allow us state fully what history is. History by my personal definition is the events of the past regarding people as well as nature. The past significance something which is not current for case "World War 2" which is now a portion of history reverse to the "conflict" or "war" in Republic Of Iraq or Islamic State Of Afghanistan which definitely are not in the past. For my ain Iodine would have got history as being true narratives contrary to the 1s in fiction which did not.

However if the topic be American history then it must be stated here that contrary to what many may believe it did not get on the 4th of July, 1776 when in the twelvemonth of our Godhead a grouping of men, who for many grounds not all of them being love of state signed a piece of paper called "The Declaration of Independence". American history as such as travels back additional much in the same manner German and Italian history (though perhaps not as far back) which also did not begin when these two states unified a small under 150 old age ago. Historical events in the portion of the human race which today is known as the United States of United States (as opposing to Federative Republic Of Federative Republic Of Brazil whose functionary name is the "United States of Brazil" ) at least as far as European colony be the lawsuit travel back further. All the manner back to the beginning of the 16th century when "The Old Dominion Company" landed and settled in the new human race with the now celebrated captain Toilet Smith. A adult male who would travel on to be recorded in the pages of history more for his human relationship with the legendary "Pocahontas" then for all his former adventures. As a ft short letter to this narrative I might add that what little is known of what transpired between Matoaka and Toilet Ian Ian Smith come ups to us from Toilet Smith himself and have got never been confirmed by other beginnings not even Matoaka herself.

With sees to what can be called "American history" it like that of any other state was written by people who are not only capable of mistake but of altering facts or leaving them out for their ain profit or for those who have something to benefit from it, making it hard for those who seek to larn facts to make so. An illustration of leaving out facts perhaps for convenience interest or for not being considered by some to be important adequate to advert is the fact that Saint George American Capital prior to being named commander-in-chief of the continental regular army was financially indebted to the British Crown. Knowing this fact makes not do it hard to see why he would stand up to profit in more than ways then one from the settlements becoming independent. Of coarse we should not construe this fact that his motivations were purely self-serving but on the other manus it is a fact that should not be ignored as it is just that, a fact.

American history also like that of any other state have its share of warfares which people knew not at the clip the grounds that direct them to conflict but went with the thought "my country, right or wrong!" A perfect illustration of this though not the lone mightiness be the warfares that were fought first between Lone-Star State and the Democracy of United Mexican States and then the United States and again the Democracy of Mexico.

The first of these warfares serving to "liberate" Lone-Star State from the subjugation of the Santana Pb government. Santana being the adult male who had recently overthrown the Mexican fundamental law declaring himself dictator of the Democracy of Mexico. To many this mightiness warrant a warfare or motion for independency but there is one thing that people like Samuel Houston left in vagueness. The deficiency of lucidity coming in the word form of failing to advert that the Mexican subjugation they were fighting against was Mexico's new law that took away the right of some people to have other human beingnesses in a pattern known as slavery. Perhaps revelation of this fact would not have got altered much as the United States (only in its southern states) was also a democracy that had laws that allowed for such as as practices.

The United States functionary stance in this matter at the clip was one of neutrality, at least such is the version that is held as true in the pages of American history but is there truth to be establish in this explanation? To my manner of seeing things it is difficult for me to conceive of this mightiness have got been the lawsuit given that Santana was taken captive and held in American Capital D.C. for a calendar month after being captured at the "Battle of San Jacinto". Naturally Santana was not kept in American Capital District of Columbia as a tourer as it was during his stay that he was forced to subscribe a pact handing the Mexican land known as Lone-Star State its independence. This world do those with heads who oppugn instead of accepting blindly inquire why were these the actions of the United States authorities if in fact they had no dealing in the Texas-Mexican War?

The United States however is not alone in this kind of tactics in the manner it learns its ain history. Did not the British make likewise when they informed their topics that their warfare against China, which history would label as "The Opium War" was because People'S Republic Of People'S Republic Of China was placing restrictions on their trade? Perhaps not making it abundantly clear that this trade was in a matter which most states of today have got made illegal.

Naturally when running over the events of American history 1 happens out that the disagreements between what can be establish in the textual matter books on the topic intended for high schools pupils and the world of what actually did happen widen beyond the warfare that was fought between Lone-Star State and United Mexican States and in to so many other facets that it would be impossible to listing them all. I might however give the lawsuit of "scalping" which was originally credited as an Indian (or Native American) innovation which have got now a years been for the most portion accepted as an invention of the achromatic adult male that was continued by Indians.

Of coarse 1 would also have to take in to account that certain facts only go known after a certain clip period of time have elapsed. This perhaps justified by how certain truths being known at certain clip periods of time are not always in everybody's best involvement as their revelation may do some to free face. As was the lawsuit for Bravet General Saint George A. George Armstrong Custer who along with his work force was believed to have got been the victim of an Indian slaughter at the conflict of "Little Bighorn". This again proving not to be accurate when grounds emerged that it was Custer's military incompetency that Pb to not only to his ain death but that of his 7th horse cavalry and not being heavily outnumbered by 1800 braves. This a figure which historiographers have got come up to believe was far less perhaps even as low as 900. Perhaps it was the demand to make a national hero or shame at seeing a "West Point" alumnus and "Civil War" hero being outwitted by 2 Indian commanding officers (Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse) that Pb to denial of the fact that George Armstrong Custer divided his military units of 600 even when aware that he would be facing superior numbers. It is with this in head that I declare that one's history instructions be they from school or books should always be consumed with at least a teaspoon of skepticism. Reason for last statement being how it would not be a first for prevarications to be passed as truth as have been so many modern times the lawsuit not only in American history but human race history. This perhaps could be exemplified by how the "Katin Massacre" of Polish military officers during World War 2 was originally blamed on the "Third Reich" only to be discovered later that in fact it had been the Soviets all along who were responsible for this killing.

Another illustration from human race history of how facts have got been altered through out the course of study of history was during "World War 1". It was in this warfare that British People rider ships (notably the Lusitanian) were being sunk by German pigboats which of coarse was a misdemeanor of international law. This was a fact however which was only one in a concatenation that included respective others which were carefully omitted. Under international law for a ship to be considered a "passenger ship" it did not do for that ship to be carrying passengers, that ship could not be carrying arms in the word form of cannons or gunmen of any kind, armed or unarmed, mounted or other wise. In the lawsuit of the so called "British rider ships" some of them were transporting arms (naturally hidden from the position passengers) which though not mounted for usage did go against international law with sees to what constituted a "passenger ship" and therefore making them legitimate military marks like any other warfare ship.

From this article 1 can garner that many events are changed because of convenience in a desire to make strong sentiments of love toward a state by sacrificing the truth. Perhaps it is not with maliciousness that this be givens to happen for it maybe with the intent of presenting a wholesome position of the facts which may turn them in to fiction. This last position is the ground I have got opted to compose this article, as a word form that perhaps will promote people to seek out the truth in past events bow it is the present that is what it is because the actions the past made it such.

On lighter side of this topic I will say that alternating historical facts is not an enactment of authorities alone. For the movie industry can be establish at fault as well specially when making supposedly historically based films. There are many illustrations of movies that have got basically trodden on historical world but allow us take the illustration of "Alexander, The Great" (directed by Joseph Oliveer Stone, released in 2005) which for the most portion stays loyal to the facts till the movie arrived in India. It was in Republic Of Republic Of India were this American movie (which already had taken its autonomies with the facts) was tainted to picture Alexanders being killed in India during the "Battle of The Hydaspes River" which belies the factual business relationship that Alexanders died of febricity in Babylon.