Like how Washington lied to slaves about setting them free if they helped the colonists win the war against the Brits?
This is a very little well known one right here: Slave owners gave slaves cocaine and heroin because they believed it made slaves work harder and faster, or that drugs were first only made illegal for blacks and other minorities to use , sell possess while it was okay for whites to use , sell , possess? I found this out by just watching the history channel and researching online. I know for a fact that I would've never learned this in a classroom. I wonder why this was hidden? I know they would NEVER , EVER EVER talk about this in drug awareness classes. If anyone else has any other dark history that's not known please share thanks.
Most Helpful Girl
Throughout history in general, every countries goal is to elevate themselves and instill pride in its youth about their country. When you feel pride in something, when things are as American as apple pie, you are willing to fight and die for that ideal and to protect it at all costs. The authors of these books spend 80% of the time talking about how we freed the slaves and everything was great for everyone and everyone was equal, how we United peacefully with the Native American's for the first Thanksgiving, how we sheltered Asian American's during the war, and on and on until what is often myth, becomes legend, and legend becomes history. Ever tried to tell the real story of Thanksgiving to a bunch of kids drawing hand turkey's... they'd never believe it. We do however now live in an age where our history is a bit less controlled by those that wield the pen. The average citizen is controlling what's recorded, what's filmed, finding the truth out and spreading it via the internet but that is only for those who want to know it. Most if not all American's will ever only simply believe what they read in school because its just easier that way, and that's exactly how historians and puritanical American's want you to believe.0
Most Helpful Guy
Well, I study history (general history or I think in America you guys call it world history) myself at University and I see it like this: "History" is something very different from "historiography". History is what actually happened. It is almost like a parallel universe that will never be able to reach. Because all we have now are sources we can analyse and interpret. Sometimes, we don't even have the first-hand sources anymore and interpret other people's interpretations. As a historian, it is my job to come as close to what really happened as possible. However, I am also aware of the fact that I will never actually be able to reach this point. In fact, even if I sat into a time machine and I travelled back to, say, the early 19th century when slavery was still present in the US, I wouldn't be able to actually record history. I could be an eye-witness and this would be of unimaginable value to modern historians, but I wouldn't actually be able to claim that the things I observed exactly happened the way I observed it or - even more importantly - for the reasons I believe. This is because even as a first-hand eye witness, we always see reality through a certain pair of glasses so to speak. This is why it's important in the academic research of history to have as many sources as possible. There is no right or wrong. Everyone sees things differently and these different view points have a lot to do with social factors (age, sex, gender, social class, upbringing, nationality, ethnicity, time of living, political views, religious views, personal health, character etc. etc.). This now brings me to historiography. Historiography is the depiction of history. It is what we often wrongly call "history". If I say "Hitler was a brutal dictator", then that is an example of historiography. It is the view of Hitler that we now have at this particular moment in time in the western hemisphere (not all of us, but most at least). If however, that is a fact in the sense of hard facts as in the natural sciences will never be known. It is possible and imaginable that people of a different historical period will view Hitler and his time drastically different. Historiography (the image we have of history) is always infused with all kinds of things such as culture, mentality, how a society functions and so forth. And of course also political agenda. What is taught in schools is not actually history but it is the view on history that a number of involved people have: the teacher,1