Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Thunderfoot" data-source="post: 5831286" data-attributes="member: 34175">Sounds to me like you came out the right side of the wrong tunnel.  Glad to hear you made it through. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Part of history is that it is easy to apply modern concepts to historical events and judge them on their obvious faults.  But, those obvious faults are rarely (if ever) obvious at the time history is being made.Custer for example was:(Then) Slaughtered by savages in an ambush while on patrol.(Now) Avenged by Native Americans for the atrocities of Wounded Knee.The events never changed but the perception did.  It doesn't make the event right or wrong per se, just an event.  That's why history in the US is taught incorrectly in my opinion.  History is about people and their stories, not dates and events.  The events are merely vehicles and the dates are strictly time keeping devices.  The people involved and the stories they convey, shaped by their thoughts are where the tapestries of history are truly woven.  Ask most people when the US was created and they will say July 4th 1776 - which is patently incorrect.  The Declaration of Independence was signed on that day, but the battles for revolution were already underway, the continental Army was already established (June 14, 1775) and the post war government was created under The Articles of Confederation. (the first "constitution" of the US that wasn't worth the paper it was written on.)The US as we know it wasn't founded until 1787 (the final draft of the Constitution), 1788 (the ratification of the Constitution (2/3 of the states signed)) or 1790 (Rhode Island - the 13th and final state to ratify the Constitution.) depending upon how you wish to spin it.   So I'll reiterate my earlier statement "any historical arguments are not black or white but subtle and numerous shades of gray."</blockquote>

Verification