Log in

View Full Version : Biggest Lie You Were Taught in School



Pages : 1 2 [3] 4

Jade62013
09-22-2013, 12:14 AM
That doing well in school means you will be prepared for the workforce...HA

Jasmine.Doll
09-22-2013, 07:33 PM
That I could be ANYTHING I wanted to be. No more upward mobility in the U.S.

>:(

Melonie
09-22-2013, 08:26 PM
^^^ arguably there is still upward mobility in the US ... but it now appears to require new 'channels' that don't necessarily involve 'hard work' or 'high skill' !!!

Eric Stoner
09-23-2013, 08:43 AM
The role of the French in the winning of the Revolutionary war, which has been blithely ignored. Specifically the much maligned French Navy's role. The Battle of Chesapeake Bay was certainly not a brilliant victory, or even decisive in a tactical sense--but it sealed the fate of the British in Yorktown, allowed substantial French land forces to aid the rebels; and thus it basically won the war.

So the next time some idiot laughs at the French & goes on about what cowards they have been, you can laugh a little harder at their historical ignorance and lack of appreciation for their own freedom.

Not even getting into the battle of Tours won by Charles Martel (the Hammer) when no one else could stop the Moslems, Charlemagne, the role of the French in the only really successful Crusade (the first), or of course La Grande Armee of Napoleon.

While it's true the French didn't do so well in the last century's wars, it was no lack of bravery. They were up against the vastly superior German artillery in WW I, and the vastly superior use of combined arms in WW II. The German tanks were no better than the French, they just knew how to use what they had in coordination with airpower and the amazingly effective German infantry.

The French soldiers did well in W.W. I. The problem was that most of their generals were terrible. They refused to revise their tactics to the realities of modern war.
French artillery was actually rather good. It was German machine guns and tactics that were superior. Your other points are spot on.

Eric Stoner
09-23-2013, 08:52 AM
^^^Yeah I was aware of that but didn't want to get carried away with the post. But thanks!

They also provided John Paul Jones with the Bonhomme Richard, in which he made such magnificent history. But that was a dubious favor lol--the ship was not in such great shape and one of the only few bigger cannon on her blew up immediately, doing a lot of damage and causing many casualties. The Serapis was a much more powerful ship, and anyone else but Jones probably wouldn't even have fought her--much less had the will to win the fight.


Another historical fact which is blithely ignored in most schools is that the Russians took on a much greater proportion of the German army in World War II than the US. Since they were communist apparently that looks bad, I don't know--plus maybe excessive nationalist pride going on there. Though we did supply the Russians with the majority of their trucks, so they could build thousands of tanks and overwhelm the Germans at their own game of mechanized warfare. Not to mention we gave them untold thousands of aircraft, boots, rations, raw materials for war production, etc. The Germans didn't really think much of the US soldiers (other than the Airborne), though they did respect Patton, and the amazing resources the US Army had, like many, many thousands more tanks, artillery, shells to fire, etc.

They also don't like to talk about the fact that our allies the Russians had actually been allied with Hitler (until he stabbed them in the back), and invaded Poland from the other side.

The Bonhomme Richard sank shortly after the captain of the Serapis struck his colors.

I just read an interesting article on the volume and types of Lend - Lease we gave the Russians during W.W. II. The numbers and tonnage are staggering BUT are dwarfed by the Russians own production. Nonetheless it was enough to make a difference and help them win SOONER than they otherwise would have.

The Russians did fight a far larger part of the German Wermacht that the U.S. and British did. They also inflicted about four times as many casualties.

The average German soldier fought harder than the average Allied soldier. He fought longer and with a lot less than the average American. He had to. If he didn't he would have been shot. After the war , many German soldiers said how much they envied the Allied superiority in supply and materiel and the consensus among them was that was the prime reason why we won. The German OKW respected and feared Patton. Montgomery , not so much.

Eric Stoner
09-23-2013, 08:55 AM
One of the lies I was taught? That the Axis powers (specifically Germany) were stopped because they were "evil". Wrong. They were stopped because they were too overtly Fascist. They were not subtle enough for modern Western civilization standards. The West, basically, was Authoritarian/Fascist using the guise of "Free Trade" to promote its legitimacy. In other words we are a "benevolent fascist society". Nazi Germany was simply "too fascist" because that kind of overt fascism was already outdated.

Who told you that ? Based on what ? Free trade ? Whoever told you that needs to be taught some history. Tell him or her to look up Smoot - Hawley and the response of our trading partners to same.

Eric Stoner
09-23-2013, 08:58 AM
^^^ in terms of 'the whole truth' , it arguably boils down to one single decision which decided the fate of WW2. That decision wasn't even made by Germany, but by Japan ... who decided to attack Pearl Harbor on Dec 7th 1941 instead of (re)attacking the Russians in Manchuria in the summer of 1941 ( see Nomonhan Incident a.k.a. battle of Khalkhin Gol ). Had Russia faced a war on two fronts in 1941, and had the entry of the USA into WW2 been delayed by just a few more months ...

http://thediplomat.com/2012/08/28/the-forgotten-soviet-japanese-war-of-1939/?all=true

The Japanese got their asses kicked by the Russians in 1939. They were afraid of the Soviet army and wanted no part of fighting them. Hitler repeatedly tried to get them to declare war against the Soviets and the Japanese refused.

Eric Stoner
09-23-2013, 09:00 AM
^^^Ah yes, Zhukov's training ground...

The Germans didn't watch and pay attention. Zhukov used the same tactics against them in December 1941 , at Stalingrad and throughout the rest of the war.

eagle2
09-23-2013, 09:05 AM
From what I've read, both sides tried to keep the conflict secret, so the Germans might not have been able to find out much. The Japanese didn't want anyone to know how badly they were defeated and the Soviets kept everything secret at the time.

Eric Stoner
09-23-2013, 10:53 AM
Good point. I think you might be right.

Djoser
09-24-2013, 02:00 AM
The French soldiers did well in W.W. I. The problem was that most of their generals were terrible. They refused to revise their tactics to the realities of modern war.
French artillery was actually rather good. It was German machine guns and tactics that were superior. Your other points are spot on.

The French generals were no worse than the British. The French artillery was certainly inferior to the German, particularly in heavy artillery, and particularly during the early years of the war. This had a great deal to do with the German initial success, defending against Allied attacks for the next years, and the near success of the 1918 offensive--though of course the development of stosstruppen infiltration tactics was the crucial improvement there--and was the genesis of blitzkrieg. Training and tactics were superior to those of the Allies as well, but the advantage superior artillery gave the Germans was immense.

The much vaunted French 75s were fine guns when they were developed in 1897, but were field guns, and had too flat a trajectory--the German 105 mm howitzer was a much better weapon. The Germans had many more howitzers in the beginning of the war. Whereas a French army corps had 120 75s, the German divisions alone had 54 77 mm field guns each, and an additional 18 105 mm howitzers. The German army corps also had 16 150 mm howitzers. Howitzers fired a heavier explosive payload at all calibers. At 2-3,000 yards, 4 105s could do the same damage as 10 75s, at considerable relative ease in transport and manpower. The 75 weighed about 1500 kilograms. The German 150 mm howitzer weighed only 2600 kilograms. The amazingly potent 210 mm howitzers completely outclassed anything the Allies possessed. Not to mention the minenwerfers.


Seven out of ten British and 75 (ETA had it at 70 before) out of 100 French casualties were caused by German artillery. Germans suffered well over half, but not so great a proportion as the Allies. The French and British also had disproportionate casualties overall compared to the German, just as in WW II.

Djoser
09-24-2013, 02:38 AM
The Bonhomme Richard sank shortly after the captain of the Serapis struck his colors.

I just read an interesting article on the volume and types of Lend - Lease we gave the Russians during W.W. II. The numbers and tonnage are staggering BUT are dwarfed by the Russians own production. Nonetheless it was enough to make a difference and help them win SOONER than they otherwise would have.

The Russians did fight a far larger part of the German Wermacht that the U.S. and British did. They also inflicted about four times as many casualties.

The average German soldier fought harder than the average Allied soldier. He fought longer and with a lot less than the average American. He had to. If he didn't he would have been shot. After the war , many German soldiers said how much they envied the Allied superiority in supply and materiel and the consensus among them was that was the prime reason why we won. The German OKW respected and feared Patton. Montgomery , not so much.

Yes, the Bonhomme Richard sank. One of my ancestors served on her.

The Russians produced 200,000 trucks, but received 400,000 jeeps and trucks via Lend Lease. This enabled them to really concentrate on tank production (about 100,000). But without those trucks, the Russians would not have been able to supply the tanks or back them with mechanized infantry, and thus adapt the German blitzkrieg tactics with nearly so much efficiency.

The average German infantry fought much more effectively long before they started shooting their own men, or they never would have dominated most of Europe for so long.


The Germans didn't watch and pay attention. Zhukov used the same tactics against them in December 1941 , at Stalingrad and throughout the rest of the war.

They didn't have to watch and pay attention to Zhukov at Khalkhin Gol, they were already masters of the art. They beat the living shit out of the Russians--despite anything Zhukov did--until overextended supply and climatic conditions brought them to a halt in the winter of 41, and he was finally able to counterattack the greatly weakened Wehrmacht. Manstein still handily kicked the shit out of the Russians after Stalingrad at the 3rd battle of Kharkov ('The Backhand Blow'), when he was finally given freedom of action. The Russians had immense superiority in tanks and aircraft in the later years, or Zhukov would not have such stunning success. Though he was a damned good general, the Germans had several in his caliber, and after the winter of '41 they were certainly paying attention. If they had possessed numerical parity--or even close--it would have been a totally different ballgame.

Djoser
09-24-2013, 03:02 AM
But we are venturing into territory outside the scope of the thread, and close to the realm of military trivia.

Eric Stoner
09-24-2013, 06:47 AM
The French generals were no worse than the British. The French artillery was certainly inferior to the German, particularly in heavy artillery, and particularly during the early years of the war. This had a great deal to do with the German initial success, defending against Allied attacks for the next years, and the near success of the 1918 offensive--though of course the development of stosstruppen infiltration tactics was the crucial improvement there--and was the genesis of blitzkrieg. Training and tactics were superior to those of the Allies as well, but the advantage superior artillery gave the Germans was immense.

The much vaunted French 75s were fine guns when they were developed in 1897, but were field guns, and had too flat a trajectory--the German 105 mm howitzer was a much better weapon. The Germans had many more howitzers in the beginning of the war. Whereas a French army corps had 120 75s, the German divisions alone had 54 77 mm field guns each, and an additional 18 105 mm howitzers. The German army corps also had 16 150 mm howitzers. Howitzers fired a heavier explosive payload at all calibers. At 2-3,000 yards, 4 105s could do the same damage as 10 75s, at considerable relative ease in transport and manpower. The 75 weighed about 1500 kilograms. The German 150 mm howitzer weighed only 2600 kilograms. The amazingly potent 210 mm howitzers completely outclassed anything the Allies possessed. Not to mention the minenwerfers.


Seven out of ten British and 75 (ETA had it at 70 before) out of 100 French casualties were caused by German artillery. Germans suffered well over half, but not so great a proportion as the Allies. The French and British also had disproportionate casualties overall compared to the German, just as in WW II.

All true but the fact remains that French and British infantry tactics were awful compared to the Germans. They suffered casualties in far greater numbers than the Germans.
Also , except for Verdun ( late 1915 to mid 1916 ) and the St. Michael's offensive of March, 1918 the Germans were primarily on the defensive.

Eric Stoner
09-24-2013, 06:52 AM
Yes, the Bonhomme Richard sank. One of my ancestors served on her.

The Russians produced 200,000 trucks, but received 400,000 jeeps and trucks via Lend Lease. This enabled them to really concentrate on tank production (about 100,000). But without those trucks, the Russians would not have been able to supply the tanks or back them with mechanized infantry, and thus adapt the German blitzkrieg tactics with nearly so much efficiency.

The average German infantry fought much more effectively long before they started shooting their own men, or they never would have dominated most of Europe for so long.



They didn't have to watch and pay attention to Zhukov at Khalkhin Gol, they were already masters of the art. They beat the living shit out of the Russians--despite anything Zhukov did--until overextended supply and climatic conditions brought them to a halt in the winter of 41, and he was finally able to counterattack the greatly weakened Wehrmacht. Manstein still handily kicked the shit out of the Russians after Stalingrad at the 3rd battle of Kharkov ('The Backhand Blow'), when he was finally given freedom of action. The Russians had immense superiority in tanks and aircraft in the later years, or Zhukov would not have such stunning success. Though he was a damned good general, the Germans had several in his caliber, and after the winter of '41 they were certainly paying attention. If they had possessed numerical parity--or even close--it would have been a totally different ballgame.

All true. The German generals were hamstrung by Hitler's meddling and his "no retreat" orders. So too were the Soviet generals by Stalin. The difference was that Stalin would listen to Zhukov and a few others.

Melonie
09-24-2013, 10:28 AM
If we're beyond a discussion of military trivia, how about we return to my point that Bretton Woods ... and its outgrowths ... receive essentially zero attention in US public school curricula. After all ...

The Bretton Woods system essentially conferred on the US Federal Reserve the ability to 'print' gold. This lasted until US Vietnam war borrowing and 'great society' spending forced an abandonment of the official linkage between US dollars and gold, at which point new agreements essentially conferred on the US Federal Reserve the ability to 'print' oil instead.

The outgrowths of Bretton Woods i.e. the World Bank and IMF conferred on the US Gov't a disproportionate ability to practice 'economic colonialism' via control / 'veto power' over loans to developing countries.

Eric Stoner
09-24-2013, 11:45 AM
Mel - Bretton Woods was a variant of the "Golden Rule " i.e. "he that has the gold makes the rules ". The fact is that at the end of W.W. II the U.S. was rich and the British and French were broke. Britain had long before exhausted it's gold reserves paying the U.S. for weapons. The French had their gold stolen by the Germans during the occupation. What other currency in wide circulation was worth anything remotely approaching the U.S. Dollar ?

Loans to developing countries are a tricky area. In the 1970's and early 80's especially , the Fed and other agencies of the U.S. government let our major commercial banks make a LOT of high interest loans to the 3rd World. Then when those economies hit the skids and they couldn't pay them back, those same agencies permitted those loans to be carried as assets on the books of those banks. Gee , just like Ben and Hank did with non-performing loans and bad securities just a few years ago.

In any event you are correct - next to nothing about this is taught in high school. In college somewhat but for most people Bretton Woods gets taught in grad school , if at all.

minnow
09-24-2013, 09:31 PM
I've hesitated to jump in since I've forgotten so much of what I "learned" in school. Thus, I cannot pinpoint exactly when the "lie" was told, and who told it. What the latest posters seem to be harping on is that education system is commiting "sins of omission" vs. sins of commission. (Leaving things out, skipping over things vs telling outright lies). Like many "hobbyist historians", I've enjoyed delving deeper into historical events, biographies of historical figures, weaponry/machinery employed by nations, etc. that schools glossed over/ignored.

To touch on 2 points: A) "Columbus Discovered America"- I actually recall a Jr High History teacher pointing out that Columbus really didn't, but that Leif Ericson did a few centuries earlier. But, we got the "big picture" that Columbus voyage served as a springboard for European migration to the Americas, and eventually the birth of the USA.
B) WW2- One could easily spend countless time micro-analyzing several battles, military commanders, and weaponry. But we got the point that USA was initially ill prepared for WW2. Pearl Harbor awakened the sleeping giant so that USA pulled itself up and won a "2 ocean war."

I've assumed that by "school", most posters mean K-12. I'm sure many have a laundry list of subjects they'd like to be covered more. Myself, I see school as building a foundation for learning, much like the foundation of the house. Several "wishlist" things are like gold plated faucets, or mint under the pillow items vs the concrete foundation. Much like drivers ed is supposed to teach students to be a functional driver on our roadways. I'm sure some people would love to be taught how to build up a car from a pile of junk, but does every driver really have to do that ? I'll agree there are some deficiencies in our educational system, but some perspective needs to be maintained in putting forth curriculum changes.

I hope I haven't strayed too far from OP. In the meantime, I think Mel should start a thread, or blog about Bretton Woods, and I'll still occasionally PM Eric on various aspects of WW2 hardware/strategy.

22lligm
09-24-2013, 09:54 PM
YEP!!! That was probably the biggest one. Every single one of our parents told us that.

I cannot believe, even to THIS day, a lot of people still believe that!!! Like they think a self-employed job isn't nearly as stable as one where... you have an EMPLOYER. How does that even make sense?? Companies are cutting down and laying off people left and right. Cutting hours. Seriously, a company could find a way to fire you for no reason and without warning! Yet if you're self-employed and good at your craft, you can always find work. What in the backwards logic.

I know this isn't the topic but isn't it because you get benefits..? Lol

xGeminix
09-25-2013, 01:27 AM
Not in any order.

1. When you get into the "real world" - school was in the real world.

2. If you don't do well now, you won't get into college - yes, you can community college.

3. Graduate from high school makes you better (more so from family) ---- I was 19 years old when I finally graduated, and I should had drop out, get my GED, do something else. I am still getting lame jobs that people that drop out, or can't even read in English do. I regret wasting 2.5 extra earning years for something that was a waste of time, COLLEGE YES, HIGH SCHOOL NO. High school only helps if you get into good schools.

Eric Stoner
09-25-2013, 07:36 AM
Not in any order.

1. When you get into the "real world" - school was in the real world.

2. If you don't do well now, you won't get into college - yes, you can community college.

3. Graduate from high school makes you better (more so from family) ---- I was 19 years old when I finally graduated, and I should had drop out, get my GED, do something else. I am still getting lame jobs that people that drop out, or can't even read in English do. I regret wasting 2.5 extra earning years for something that was a waste of time, COLLEGE YES, HIGH SCHOOL NO. High school only helps if you get into good schools.

Hmmm. I'm sorry but the stats say that if you want to avoid being poor you should stay out of jail , not get married before age 21 , not get pregnant if you are not married and finish high school. Those that follow those basic guidelines have at least a 50 to 1 chance of not being poor. Those that break one of those rules more than double their chances of being poor and those that do two or more are virtually guaranteed a lifetime of poverty.

Eric Stoner
09-25-2013, 07:43 AM
I've hesitated to jump in since I've forgotten so much of what I "learned" in school. Thus, I cannot pinpoint exactly when the "lie" was told, and who told it. What the latest posters seem to be harping on is that education system is commiting "sins of omission" vs. sins of commission. (Leaving things out, skipping over things vs telling outright lies). Like many "hobbyist historians", I've enjoyed delving deeper into historical events, biographies of historical figures, weaponry/machinery employed by nations, etc. that schools glossed over/ignored.

To touch on 2 points: A) "Columbus Discovered America"- I actually recall a Jr High History teacher pointing out that Columbus really didn't, but that Leif Ericson did a few centuries earlier. But, we got the "big picture" that Columbus voyage served as a springboard for European migration to the Americas, and eventually the birth of the USA.
B) WW2- One could easily spend countless time micro-analyzing several battles, military commanders, and weaponry. But we got the point that USA was initially ill prepared for WW2. Pearl Harbor awakened the sleeping giant so that USA pulled itself up and won a "2 ocean war."

I've assumed that by "school", most posters mean K-12. I'm sure many have a laundry list of subjects they'd like to be covered more. Myself, I see school as building a foundation for learning, much like the foundation of the house. Several "wishlist" things are like gold plated faucets, or mint under the pillow items vs the concrete foundation. Much like drivers ed is supposed to teach students to be a functional driver on our roadways. I'm sure some people would love to be taught how to build up a car from a pile of junk, but does every driver really have to do that ? I'll agree there are some deficiencies in our educational system, but some perspective needs to be maintained in putting forth curriculum changes.

I hope I haven't strayed too far from OP. In the meantime, I think Mel should start a thread, or blog about Bretton Woods, and I'll still occasionally PM Eric on various aspects of WW2 hardware/strategy.

I think the consensus is that most things taught that are just not so ( untrue , incomplete , heavily biased etc. ) are taught in K - 12. That doesn't mean that colleges are immune so if anyone was taught something that wasn't true in college or grad school, please feel free to share it. We've gotten a wide variety of examples from the posters ranging from simple misstatements of fact to the spouting of shibboleths and the like. Afaic they qualify as "lies" for the purposes of this thread if they can be shown to be anything from questionable to totally untrue. Obviously it is a subjective test so the posters get a lot of latitude. I have only questioned one or two responses that imho are just simply not true.

minnow
09-25-2013, 09:05 AM
OK, Eric, I suppose "in school" could mean stuff learned outside the classroom while still in school, but at an activity withhin the auspices of the school. In my case, US was in the middle of a recession when an eminent, highly regarded professional came over for an informal talk on university property. Of course, the subject of job prospects after graduation arose. Speaker said that he expected that "things would open up in a few years", and that prospects for his company hiring graduates would be more likely than in the past. It did take a few years for industry wide hiring to open up, but the time window turned out to be narrow before another recession hit. The speakers company didn't take on any new hire professionals for another decade, and ended up going out of business in 17 years.
IMO, speaker wasn't deliberately trying to deceive us, but even then I thought he was engaging in a bit of wishful thinking.

Eric Stoner
09-25-2013, 10:46 AM
^^^ I dunno about stuff like that. At worst it was wishful thinking. Prognosticating about something that doesn't come to pass is not what I would call a "lie" or "untruth".
It's not like he misstated the hiring history of his company.

Melonie
09-25-2013, 02:21 PM
That doesn't mean that colleges are immune so if anyone was taught something that wasn't true in college or grad school, please feel free to share it.

since you asked ... Keynesian Economic Theory, where ...

- the production of actual goods and services are the functional equivalent of the Fed printing money

- the spending of borrowed money is the functional equivalent of spending money that was previously earned via the production of actual goods and services.

r2468
09-25-2013, 11:40 PM
^ I think Keynes gets a bum steer. He'd be rolling in his grave at some of the stuff done supposedly justified by his theory.

I accept the theory of smoothing the economic cycle through spending and saving.

In practice politicians seem to be in a permanent crisis that needs constant spending, and never pay back their lending or inflate their way out of trouble by money printing (aka "kick the can down the road").

Tarasaurusrex
09-26-2013, 01:28 AM
[QUOTE=Melonie;2538818]actually, a number of facts point to a conclusion that certain influential Americans were responsible for helping to bring Hitler to power !!! Also, a number of the basic principles behind Hitler's most heinous policies were arguably of American origin !

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/StrangeBedfellows_TAA.html

We'll NEVER see this material in a public school curriculum !!!

You are so right regarding this:

A) The Tuskagee Syphilis Experiment - fom 1932 to 1972 rural Afrian Americans were alloted a weekly food incentive provided they participate in this study. Despite the discovery of penicillin killing the bacteria that caused syphilis, no participants were given penicillin or made aware of this fact.

B) In 1927 the supreme court ruling on the case Buck vs Bell allowed for the compulsory sterilization of mentally handicaped or promiscuous and is a form of eugenics. Despite becoming all but obselete in 1963 the ruling was NEVER overturned.

Another lie: if we just sentenced everyone to death we wouldn't have to pay to keep them incarcerated for life. The average cost of a life sentence (thus the burden the taypayer is resonsible for) is $750,000. To execute someone the cost averages $1.26 million; due to endless appeals, prosecution and defense (you won't find a rich person on death row).

Eric Stoner
09-26-2013, 07:11 AM
Sadly , Tuskegee was just ONE example of horrendous behavior by our government with so - called "experiments". Remember the Army secretly dosing soldiers with LSD ? When Whitey Bulger was a prisoner on Alcatraz he volunteered to take LSD. Seriously. There were other examples. Some of our states were just as bad letting drug companies test new meds on prisoners and the like.

Buck v. Bell is a notorious case. I think that's the one where Oliver Wendell Holmes said : " Three generations of imbeciles are enough ! " Ironically , Buck was a lifelong avid reader and her daughter made the honor roll in school several times. There were a LOT of other things wrong with that case. Buck's attorney did a very poor job representing her and may have been in league with the proponents of eugenics. While it hasn't been explicitly overruled it has been heavily criticized and discredited.

The death penalty is a very expensive way to get "justice". Life sentences are certainly cheaper. Proponents try to turn it around and say that the expense comes from the endless rounds of appeals i.e. we should execute people more quickly regardless of whether or not they are guilty. I am not making that up. Many advocates of capital punishment are content to let a few innocent people get executed. Sick !

simone87
09-26-2013, 06:39 PM
that the united states is the best country in the world, and we all have it so easy and the rest of the entire world is eating dirt and can't count to ten or read. where really, a lot of the world seems much more advanced..not third world countries of course, but americans seem to believe everywhere else is a third world country compared to us. just isn't true. its like a guilt/superiority thing all rolled into one

oldster
09-27-2013, 01:06 PM
I read a bunch of this thread, but not all, so forgive me if someone has posted this. There is a great book an old girlfriend gave me called "Lies my Teacher Told Me" that is really quite good. It talks about how textbooks are written and has a lot of first person history. It is a bit lefty/commie editorially, but if you have a good filter for that kind of thing it is a good read.

http://www.amazon.com/Lies-My-Teacher-Told-Everything/dp/0684818868/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1380312179&sr=8-2&keywords=lies+my+teacher+told+me

Must have been published late 80's so maybe he has updated it.

eagle2
09-28-2013, 12:15 AM
That the Dark Ages were "dark".

http://listverse.com/2008/06/09/top-10-reasons-the-dark-ages-were-not-dark/

Melonie
09-28-2013, 04:30 AM
^^^ Eagle is 100% correct that the Dark Ages were only 'dark' in western Europe ... and even then there were many 'bright' spots. And as the above link points out, the Islamic world had it's arguably 'brightest' period during this time. As the link did NOT point out, China / Asia had a similarly 'bright' period. The fact that non-western European, non-Christian history isn't taught in 'western', 'Christian' countries is not a coincidence.

Eric Stoner
09-30-2013, 06:50 AM
^^^ Excellent point. History as taught in most U.S. schools is very Euro-centric.

FreeSpirit
10-05-2013, 03:19 PM
That I could take the unbeaten path and become a writer

That just having a degree from an Ivy would be my ticket to any job I want

That, well, it's too political to go into

That you should just let disrespect go and forgive and act like nothing happened so you can get disrespected again

That slutty girls aren't happy

That if you're a good girl everyone will respect you and you'll live a magical fairy tale life

charlotte.
10-06-2013, 12:31 AM
I think the consensus is that most things taught that are just not so ( untrue , incomplete , heavily biased etc. ) are taught in K - 12. That doesn't mean that colleges are immune so if anyone was taught something that wasn't true in college or grad school, please feel free to share it. We've gotten a wide variety of examples from the posters ranging from simple misstatements of fact to the spouting of shibboleths and the like. Afaic they qualify as "lies" for the purposes of this thread if they can be shown to be anything from questionable to totally untrue. Obviously it is a subjective test so the posters get a lot of latitude. I have only questioned one or two responses that imho are just simply not true.

Ime I wasn't told any of these "lies" although I would argue that a lot of these are oversimplifications that are necessary to teach kids to get them excited about history. you can't teach a 1st grader anything that's more complicated than "columbus discovered america," and when they're old enough their new teacher will clarify/modify.

maybe I went to the sole exception school? I doubt it, although I'm sure standards vary dramatically by state. fwiw when I volunteered at a very poor school with a low graduation rate the "facts" taught were the same ones essentially I learned at my private hs.

the counselors were horrible tho...encouraged us to go to whatever college we wanted to and study whatever major we wanted with no regard to loans, practicality, etc. aka I know people who took out 6 figure debt to go to some shitty fl state school to study gender studies...yikes!

Eric Stoner
10-07-2013, 07:03 AM
Ime I wasn't told any of these "lies" although I would argue that a lot of these are oversimplifications that are necessary to teach kids to get them excited about history. you can't teach a 1st grader anything that's more complicated than "columbus discovered america," and when they're old enough their new teacher will clarify/modify.

maybe I went to the sole exception school? I doubt it, although I'm sure standards vary dramatically by state. fwiw when I volunteered at a very poor school with a low graduation rate the "facts" taught were the same ones essentially I learned at my private hs.

the counselors were horrible tho...encouraged us to go to whatever college we wanted to and study whatever major we wanted with no regard to loans, practicality, etc. aka I know people who took out 6 figure debt to go to some shitty fl state school to study gender studies...yikes!

I think you have raised a very good question : Are high school counselors au courant ? Have they kept up with some modern realities ? Do they take things like potential debt load into account ?

Kellydancer
10-07-2013, 10:48 AM
I have to say my school counselors were fantastic and really said what they believed. Mine for example really pushed for me going to college to study Spanish over another major or if I wanted to join the military do it through ROTC (and go in as an officer). He would also encourage students who weren't college material to study at the trade school. Today I hear counselors really push all students to attend college and study all majors.

Melonie
10-10-2013, 02:09 PM
^^^ actually, scientific proof of quantum teleportation has just recently been established ... see However, this is a bit off topic since proof of quantum teleportation very recently entered 'mainstream' science, thus it is understandable that it has not yet made the transition into textbooks.

Perhaps of more relevance where this thread topic is concerned is the underlying point about only 'generally accepted' science being taught, while other science is excluded ( despite arguable incontrovertible proof that other science is correct where 'generally accepted' science is wrong or incomplete ), from all HS and the vast majority of college curricula. Listening to some sources, this trend in education goes all the way back to potentially extremely important aspects of Boscovich's and later Maxwell's Theory arguably being 'disguised' for 100-200 years, starting with Heaviside, and mostly continuing to this day. This has occurred ( and continues to occur ) despite 'other' aspects of Boscovich's and later Maxwell's Theory arguably having been put to practical use by Nikola Tesla, Walter Gerlach, Gabriel Kron, Fleischmann & Pons, and many others. I would also point out that Albert Einstein published some 'early' papers following along the lines of Boscovich and Maxwell, before suddenly 'changing course'.

I won't elaborate further other than suggesting that interested readers should Google 'unified field theory' along with any of the above names !

Tarasaurusrex
10-10-2013, 05:17 PM
^^^ actually, scientific proof of quantum teleportation has just recently been established ... see http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128910996 However, this is a bit off topic since proof of quantum teleportation very recently entered 'mainstream' science, thus it is understandable that it has not yet made the transition into textbooks.

Perhaps of more relevance where this thread topic is concerned is the underlying point about only 'generally accepted' science being taught, while other science is excluded ( despite arguable incontrovertible proof that other science is correct where 'generally accepted' science is wrong or incomplete ), from all HS and the vast majority of college curricula. Listening to some sources, this trend in education goes all the way back to potentially extremely important aspects of Boscovich's and later Maxwell's Theory arguably being 'disguised' for 100-200 years, starting with Heaviside, and mostly continuing to this day. This has occurred ( and continues to occur ) despite 'other' aspects of Boscovich's and later Maxwell's Theory arguably having been put to practical use by Nikola Tesla, Walter Gerlach, Gabriel Kron, Fleischmann & Pons, and many others. I would also point out that Albert Einstein published some 'early' papers following along the lines of Boscovich and Maxwell, before suddenly 'changing course'.

I won't elaborate further other than suggesting that interested readers should Google 'unified field theory' along with any of the above names !

Let me just say, I have been around this forum for quite a few years and never interacted with you, but have read your posts and you are ridiculously smart. You know something about most every topic....I just am continually amazed.

GlamourRouge
10-10-2013, 06:41 PM
That you should just let disrespect go and forgive and act like nothing happened so you can get disrespected again

Oh god, I still hate this one! You call someone out on their shit or their lies that directly involves you, and suddenly YOU are deemed ~*crazy*~, ~*rude*~, ~*drama-seeking*~ and all sorts of other lies. But if you DON'T call them out, they get to continue to get away with their horrible treatment of human beings, and both you and them get rewarded for that behavior until someone catches it.



That slutty girls aren't happy

This one has always made me laugh so hard. Its not just that ~*slutty girls can't be happy*~. Its that ANY girl who engages in ANY kind of sexual activity ~*isn't happy*~, is a pervert, and has some sort of sex addiction that makes it not okay for her to be around children. Sadly, I think this embarrassing stereotype comes from the field of psychology. Dr Drew always spews those lies every time I see him on TV or hear him on the radio. It simply isn't true. I'm glad I abandoned that field when I did lol.




That if you're a good girl everyone will respect you and you'll live a magical fairy tale life

What are people on, seriously? If you're a ~*good girl*~ all that will happen is people will walk all over you. You'll have to live in your boring house your whole life with your 2 friends who are in the same boat as you. And then when you're on your death bed, you'll regret everything you never did because you were too addicted to getting the ~*praise*~ you got for ~*doing the right thing*~ when it wasn't the right thing to do at all. You were tricked and manipulated because everyone saw you as an easy target.




I think you have raised a very good question : Are high school counselors au courant ? Have they kept up with some modern realities ? Do they take things like potential debt load into account ?

I think most know, they just don't give a shit. A lot of teachers I've come across are passive aggressive as hell and like to ~*punish*~ students they are jealous of. So I feel like most of them just frankly don't give a shit or kind of get off on misleading most students into debt. And anyway, they have to teach kids that ~*education is your ticket to a great life*~ in public schools at least, because that's what the government wants. And they're government funded so... I'm not even pro-private schools. I'm just pro-education-outside-the-classwork. Some people need to use their brains and don't.



1) That electrons "jump" from valence ring to valence ring. Wrong: they "teleport" by appearing and reappearing. Blew my mind.

I keep thinking about this. where did this idea come from? I'm not saying it is wrong but it is unusual. Did you create this view yourself? read it somewhere?

sorry but I love this stuff. kinda mystical.

I honestly think that there are other dimensions all around us. It would explain the concept of ghosts (which I personally know exist because I have clear, loud, recorded EVPs from them). But the gov doesn't want us to know about that shit. So obviously, if they teach that ~*things teleport*~ then it starts causing kids (teens, and adults) to question our current beliefs on reality. Google the holographic universe theory.

GlamourRouge
10-10-2013, 07:37 PM
^^ Glamour I remember you like the holographic theory but I just can't get it. 2d projected onto 3d? I don't know.

When you think about this stuff and ghosts, do you feel connected with something bigger? do ghosts scare you or do you feel like you have self -defense abilities against bad spirits? I think we have defenses.

I guess I'm taking the thread too far afield. I should probably look for a related halloween thread but I was taught to believe in ghosts in school, haha (catholic grammar school). And I saw a ghost in the school chapel when I was in 3rd grade. lol

Its not really like that. Its more like a bunch of dimensions all intertwined with many projecting into our current dimension, from what I've read. This looks like a good vid, but I only skimmed through it because its long:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMBt_yfGKpU

When I think about or experience the paranormal (including ghosts), it makes me think the world we live in is not the real world. Like why are we not supposed to know that a bunch of different things exist? I know it would cause mass hysteria for most, but why is it do downplayed and hidden?


I bet there's a big difference between what you learn in private catholic school and what you learn in public school. Even the ways in which you are taught to think must be so different. Were you exposed to a lot of virgin-whore complexes? Were you taught that all ghosts were of a demonic origin? Its so crazy to think that religion has a spiritual element but its just so... lost most of the time.

Glamourmilf
10-10-2013, 08:54 PM
That if I learned how to cook, sew, and do shorthand, I'd always have a job as a secretary (this was before computers and mobile phones were invented), and have the skills I would need to have a functional home.

Melonie
10-11-2013, 02:58 AM
You know something about most every topic....I just am continually amazed

Well, I went to the best 'real world university' in the world ... sitting on the laps of some very smart ( and rich ) people in Manhattan and other big city VIP rooms for lots of years. I used to make it a point to try and truly understand everything that they were talking to each other about ... even though they typically assumed that my having a very full chest also meant that I had a very empty head. However had this not been the case I doubt that they would have actually had many of the conversations / discussions that I was allowed to overhear !



she is smart but unfortunately she gets AM radio down there. just kidding

^^^ that's true actually, which is why I shell out my biggest monthly expense down here for broadband internet service !!! But on the 'live input' side, I now run into vacationing guys from both eastern and western Europe, as well as both north and south America down here, that adds to the 'global' perspective. And where this particular topic is concerned, some things I have heard from Russians, Poles, Argentines, etc. indeed provided me a new perspective.



thanks for the info on Tesla, I keep meaning to read more in that area. Boscovich is fascinating

INDEED !!! Also note that both were Eastern Europeans ... and both arguably got the proverbial 'short end of the stick' from Western scientific establishments and media at the time. At least Nikola Tesla was finally credited with some of his actual accomplishments ( i.e. a legal recognition that he was the actual inventor of Radio 30+ years after the fact, while Marconi / RCA still got to keep all of Marconi's bogus patent royalties ), whereas Roger Boscovich was mostly 'ignored' during his lifetime.

The 'disturbing' issue with both is that their research work and resulting practical developments were FAR ahead of the world around them. I have read as much as I could find about Tesla's history, and talked to some 'old timers' who actually knew him in NY City while I was living there, and can only assume that many of Tesla's accomplishments were carted away and locked in a dark vault forever by the OSS upon his death in 1943. Same is true of Walter Gerlach's pre-1946 work, which is probable sealed up with Operation Paper Clip files or at the bottom of a collapsed Silesian coal mine. We know that Gabriel Kron's work is mostly 'locked up' in GE's corporate vaults. And same is arguably true of Fleischmann & Pons, although new 'players' carrying their work forward outside of sealed laboratories still pop up to garner a bit of press coverage every now and then.

And this leads us full circle back to the topic of this thread ... which is that mainstream educational institutions and media, if they provide any info at all, all paint a picture that the non-mainstream topics of research and resulting practical applications stemming from the above group mostly amounts to 'science fiction' and/or 'crackpot science' and/or 'conspiracy theory', and then proceed to teach and/or cover different versions i.e. 'mainstream' science stemming from their 'heroes' i.e. Einstein.

Eric Stoner
10-11-2013, 07:11 AM
Some incredible stuff being posted here. The ghosts are made out of electrons and/or other particles is a new one for me.

I think there is a difference between being simplistic and teaching things that are just not so. The former is a function of trying to be age appropriate ( which I hated ) and aiming for the lowest common denominator which I didn't like either. While trying to avoid being political , the issue arises whether most public schools are shortchanging both the slower children ( who mostly drop out , get left back etc. ) and the intellectually gifted children . One of my biggest problems in public school was BOREDOM ! In first grade I already knew how to read but had to sit through : " See Dick. See Dick run. See Jane. See Jane run away from Dick. " In 3rd grade our Social Studies textbook was published in the 1930's and was obviously ridiculously out of date. By high school I had read more history than most of my teachers. I was able to get out of High School in three years and couldn't wait to go to college.

Melonie
10-11-2013, 08:50 AM
^^^ trying to avoid a political side trip, I would argue that the scientists I mentioned and the potential applications / inventions they have come up not being taught to mainstream HS students, college students, the general public etc. is NOT just a matter of simplification.

Instead, it is arguable that the 'powers that be' have deemed the discoveries of these scientists, and the applications / inventions stemming from those discoveries, as being too 'disruptive', too 'dangerous', etc. for anyone outside the 'powers that be' themselves to be made aware of ... let alone be able to USE !!! As such, outside of an 'elite' circle, these discoveries will not be taught, and the resulting applications / inventions will be classified as 'fraudulent', 'science fiction', 'conspiracy theory' etc.

Of course, some would point out that the world has a few thousand years worth of history illustrating that this is precisely what has traditionally happened since the days of Solomon.

Eric Stoner
10-11-2013, 11:53 AM
^^ you are right Melonie. There is a lot of money to be made by portraying certain theories as being 'fringe'. Look how much money big pharma made off of drugs like Zantac and Tagamet decades after some researchers in Australia confirmed ulcers were caused by bacteria.
http://ulcer-cure.com/index.php/h-pylori/all-about-h-pylori/h-pylori-conspiracy

But back to the thread...and the time of year.

Eric, do you know what caused the believe in ghosts to go out of favor? Historically, people around the world have believed in ghosts forever, but now educated society distances themselves from this idea. how did this happen? was it part of school policy? I can think of no organization that would benefit economically from promoting the dis-beleif in ghosts.

Mr. Button - I don't know. Some people believe in ghosts, some don't. I've had a couple spooky experiences but I've never "seen" a ghost. I think I have a very open mind that permits all sorts of possibilities. Personally I am wary of anything that exhibits or promotes pretentiousness. Humankind's knowledge is easily exceeded by all the things we don't know.

I don't know if it should be taught in schools but afaic there is nothing wrong with talking about them.

Tarasaurusrex
10-11-2013, 12:34 PM
^^ you are right Melonie. There is a lot of money to be made by portraying certain theories as being 'fringe'. Look how much money big pharma made off of drugs like Zantac and Tagamet decades after some researchers in Australia confirmed ulcers were caused by bacteria.
http://ulcer-cure.com/index.php/h-pylori/all-about-h-pylori/h-pylori-conspiracy


Okay, not ALL ulcers are caused by bacteria, you are thinking of the H. Pylori bacteria, specifically, which makes up less than 1/3 of all ulcer cases. There is still peptic ulcer disease, diverticulitis, crohn's, gastroesophageal reflux disease, to name a few, not to mention stress can cause ulcers. Also, if you have an ulcer it is not recommended you take tagamet (cimetidine) that is for mild heartburn......so what are you talking about? Please get your facts straight, then come back and post an intelligible response. Also, if you were going against "big pharma" well guess who makes the antibiotics to treat H. Pylori......really dude, think, then speak, don't misinform people.

Bone
10-11-2013, 01:03 PM
That teachers are smart enough to do their job. I get the feeling a large number of teachers these days couldn't even pass GED tests related to their subjects.

Melonie
10-11-2013, 04:23 PM
^^^ compared to Tagamet, the history of Sulfa drugs is actually far more significant ... well, at least more significant in terms of the topic of this thread ...


from Wiki

(snip)"Sulfonamide drugs were the first antimicrobial drugs, and paved the way for the antibiotic revolution in medicine. The first sulfonamide, trade-named Prontosil, was a prodrug. Experiments with Prontosil began in 1932 in the laboratories of Bayer AG, at that time a component of the huge German chemical trust IG Farben. The Bayer team believed that coal-tar dyes able to preferentially bind to bacteria and parasites might be used to target harmful organisms in the body. After years of fruitless trial-and-error work on hundreds of dyes, a team led by physician/researcher Gerhard Domagk (working under the general direction of Farben executive Heinrich Hörlein) finally found one that worked: a red dye synthesized by Bayer chemist Josef Klarer that had remarkable effects on stopping some bacterial infections in mice.[3] The first official communication about the breakthrough discovery was not published until 1935, more than two years after the drug was patented by Klarer and his research partner Fritz Mietzsch."(snip)

... in point of fact, Bayer / IG Farben were directed to keep the discovery of sulfa a secret rather than developing it for widespread use in the treatment of 'average' people ... based on the huge advantage that an effective antibiotic could have in regard to reducing war casualties for the one 'side' who had such an antibiotic available while the other 'side' did not. Unfortunately for the Germans, a Ukranian researcher involved with the discovery and testing chose to defy the gov't secrecy edict and publish the existence of the world's first truly effective antibiotic. See

It is curious to note such possibilities that, had it not been for the 'leak' by the Ukranian researcher, and the subsequent development of sulfa drugs by US divisions of German pharma companies after the 'leaked' publication, Franklin Delano Roosevelt could very well have died of a strep infection contracted in 1936 !!! Had it not been for the 'leak' by the Ukranian researcher, Allied casualties during the later years of WW2 could have been much higher than they actually were ... which, given the very narrow margins of winning vs losing battles between the Germans and the Russians in 1941-1942, could well have turned the tide of the war had an 'alternate' antibiotic not been made available to the Russians in 1943.

Of course, today's HS and college curricula concentrate on that 'alternate' antibiotic i.e. media 'hero' Fleming and penicillium mold, the effects of which were technically discovered in 1928. But penicillin wasn't actually developed into a practical drug for widespread use until the US became involved in WW2, with the existence of sulfa ( and the heavy German dominance in successful sulfa drug manufacture ) was already made public but downplayed / discredited. In fact, there is a fair amount of evidence to indicate that the US division of German drug company Mallinkrodt "accidentally' managed to kill a hundred plus Americans in 1936 with their first release of an American produced sulfa drug to perpetuate the mainstream impression that there was 'no such thing as a safe and effective wide-spectrum antibiotic'. ( anecdotally, that 1936 Mallinkrodt sulfa death 'incident' was the origin of US drug testing regulations ).

At the moment that the US entered WW2, it is estimated that the total amount of penicillin existing in the USA amounted to just a few spoonfuls of laboratory samples, and no testing had yet been done on human subjects. Limited amounts of sulfa drugs were available from the US divisions of a couple of German based pharma companies, but there was obvious concern that supply / quality problems during wartime ( after all the parent companies and patents were German ) could quickly become an issue. Thus the US gov't decided to invest tens of millions of dollars to develop Fleming's penicillin into a mass producible practical antibiotic ( seizing US/UK pharma patents and future profits in the process ).

HS and most college curricula make very little mention of sulfa's origins and history, and especially avoid mention of Bayer / IG Farben's secrecy which literally kept the existence of the world's first truly effective antibiotic a German state secret for years !

Eric Stoner
10-14-2013, 07:21 AM
That teachers are smart enough to do their job. I get the feeling a large number of teachers these days couldn't even pass GED tests related to their subjects.

Now we get to one of the root causes of our lousy educational system - teachers in most school systems have to get a Master's degree. Do English teachers have to get a Masters in English ; math teachers math , history teachers history ? Nope. They have to get Master's degrees in education, NOT the subject area that they teach. The other side of the coin is that eminent historians and PhD's in a host of subjects cannot teach in most school systems unless they get a Master's in education. I could go on and describe some of the courses and lectures from these Master's programs. Do a Google search and be prepared to roll your eyes. One of the most notorious had the Master's students repeatedly change their seats in a lecture hall. The people from the front would swap seats with those in the back; the right side of the room would swap with the left. One student actually got in trouble for questioning why they were doing that, by asking what the purpose was ? The professor thought it was profound to ask how they felt about sitting in varying parts of the room. I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP. People in other countries where teachers are very respected ( and fairly well paid btw ) can't believe it when I tell them that we don't require teachers to have expertise in particular subjects. Whatever happened to "teaching what you love" ?