US History. Fact or overblown myth?

[Shadow Wolf]

Oh thanks.
So who is in this electoral college?

Whoever the party conventions decide to send. The citizens have zero say over who the official delegate is.

 

[SomeRandom]

Whoever the party conventions decide to send. The citizens have zero say over who the official delegate is.

That sounds worrisome, if I’m honest.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That sounds worrisome, if I’m honest.

It is. It's how Trump was elected. Voted in by people that very few know who they are or how they got to that position. And it is all rubbish. But, the most problematic part of it, if a candidate wins a state by 1 vote, the million votes, or how many ever, for the other candidate count for nothing. It ensures those in non competitive states who dont vote as the state normally does are basically unheard and casting votes that are never considered.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'm not sure I'd go as far as calling US history "overblown myth," but my education did paint a bit of a exceptionalist picture of the US.

However, I'm not sure if our history is any more embellished than it is in any other country to teaches Pride in Country™, because I have nothing to compare it to, as I don't recall having been raised and educated in any other country.

For quick comparison, I'd say we (Australia) do less of the 'Pride in Country' part, but about as much sweeping under the carpet actual history in favour of narrative.

Take that as a rough, rough, rough subjective assessment.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I reject this as a revisionist myth. The USA was not built on conquest or white supremacy.
That
is
a
Lie.

The USA was based on settlement, cooperation and the universal equality of mankind.

What's your opinion on Manifest Destiny?

 

[Shaul]

I know you follow the mindset that insists that blind, unquestioning loyalty to leadership and boot licking is the way to be a good American, but that mindset is actually the very cancer killing this nation.

This right there tells my two things. One, when you claim to know something it can be something that you certainly cannot know and is also false. The other is that you aren’t even interested in genuine civil discourse.

 

[Shaul]

Well you guys don’t seem to present it that way, but I won’t begrudge you for it.
And since America is not above criticism, what are your thoughts on the aforementioned trail of tears? And manifest destiny?

Manifest destiny, per se, is simply a recognition that America would likely eventually stretch from ocean to ocean. However the concept was often twisted. It was never accepted by all Americans and arguably never by the majority. It was also the tool of segments of American society for nefarious ends. I would also note that it primarily a vehicle of Democrats, such as Senator Douglas and President Polk among many, and opposed by Republicans such as President Lincoln and President Grant.

Similarly the trails of tears was the product of Democrat actions. In particular Presidents Jackson and Van Buren(both Democrats) and opposed by the Whigs (the predecessor of the Republicans).

 

[Father Heathen]

Manifest destiny, per se, is simply a recognition that America would likely eventually stretch from ocean to ocean. However the concept was often twisted. It was never accepted by all Americans and arguably never by the majority. It was also the tool of segments of American society for nefarious ends. I would also note that it primarily a vehicle of Democrats, such as Senator Douglas and President Polk among many, and opposed by Republicans such as President Lincoln and President Grant.

Similarly the trails of tears was the product of Democrat actions. In particular Presidents Jackson and Van Buren(both Democrats) and opposed by the Whigs (the predecessor of the Republicans).

Ah, I love it when conservatives try to pretend that the parties 200 years ago are mirror images of their contemporary counterparts. That would explain all of the democrats who fly the confederate flag and try to preserve confederate statues.

Nice try, though. Besides, we're talking about the U.S. history a whole, so what difference does partisanship make in that regard?

 

[Hildeburh]

With all this talk of tearing down statues “erasing history” I’m curious.
I hear, even from people on this very site, that their own education system essentially taught American exceptionalism instead of true history. If I misunderstood anyone, I apologise. But even kids shows have made that observation in the past so.....

The Founding Fathers seem revered, deified even, to my view.
I’m not against origin myths mixing with history. But I mean America takes the concept and runs with it.

So how much history is actually being portrayed by these “contentious” monuments do you think? And I mean actual history, not glorified myths.
Because a lot of your statues look more like religious statues than something one would find in a museum.

I have no horse in this race. This is just to quench my own curiosity.
Americans, how honest do you think your History is? Has that changed over the years, do you think?
Is there merit to keeping the myth rather than face the truth?

Discuss and debate as you like and mods feel free to move this thread if you think it’s in the wrong spot.

It's foundation myth from the perspective of white colonisers. If you don't mind a neopagan comparison it's much like BTW their foundation myth which was debunked but it did not lead to the cessation of the cult but strengthened it because they faced the intellectual challenge. America is a new democracy facing a reckoning with their past it could go either way, a pity if they waste the opportunity to objectively look at the past.

 

[Twilight Hue]

With all this talk of tearing down statues “erasing history” I’m curious.
I hear, even from people on this very site, that their own education system essentially taught American exceptionalism instead of true history. If I misunderstood anyone, I apologise. But even kids shows have made that observation in the past so.....

The Founding Fathers seem revered, deified even, to my view.
I’m not against origin myths mixing with history. But I mean America takes the concept and runs with it.

So how much history is actually being portrayed by these “contentious” monuments do you think? And I mean actual history, not glorified myths.
Because a lot of your statues look more like religious statues than something one would find in a museum.

I have no horse in this race. This is just to quench my own curiosity.
Americans, how honest do you think your History is? Has that changed over the years, do you think?
Is there merit to keeping the myth rather than face the truth?

Discuss and debate as you like and mods feel free to move this thread if you think it’s in the wrong spot.

Our history is true but its been clearly embellished and doesn't address the whole story.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Ah, I love it when conservatives try to pretend that the parties 200 years ago are mirror images of their contemporary counterparts. That would explain all of the democrats who fly the confederate flag and try to preserve confederate statues.

I love it when liberals try to deny their own background and pin it on others as if things about them are not true.

That would explain all the marxist symbolism and Socialist and Communist memberships that liberals sign up for now days.

 

[Father Heathen]

I love it when liberals try to deny their own background and pin it on others as if things about them are not true.

That would explain all the marxist symbolism and Socialist and Communist memberships that liberals sign up for now days.

So you're saying those who fly the confederate flag are liberals? Who do you really think that the dems of the 1800's would vote for the dems today? That party policies and values haven't changed? Why aren't the southern states "blue" today? Again, only imbeciles would think nothing has changed over 200 years.

 

[Tambourine]

I love it when liberals try to deny their own background and pin it on others as if things about them are not true.

That would explain all the marxist symbolism and Socialist and Communist memberships that liberals sign up for now days.

Which liberals are you talking about? The Whigs? The Democrat-Republicans? The Federalists? The Democratic Party? The National Republican Party? All of those were liberal parties, to one extent or another.

Marxism generally rejects liberalism as a viable political movement for the working class, by the way, primarily as a response to the result of the 1848 revolutions and the 1870 Paris Commune.

 

[Father Heathen]

@Shaul and @Nowhere Man , why do a lot of republicans fly "democrat" flags and defend "democrat" statues?

 

[Father Heathen]

Marxism generally rejects liberalism as a viable political movement for the working class,

Yet it's antithetical toward fiscal conservatism.