On 7/4/2026 at 8:50 PM, MIke B Bad said:

The truth?

A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn is a fantastic look at the US. Most history is taught by wars. Zinn teaches history from ordinary people's POV. Studs Terkel's oral histories are also wonderful resources.

On 7/6/2026 at 12:24 AM, kwilco said:

Watching the coverage of the US 250 celebrations, I couldn't help wondering whether this is meant to commemorate history or replace it.

The version being presented seems to belong more to Hollywood than to the history books—a carefully choreographed story of heroic founders, rugged pioneers, military glory and American exceptionalism, with many of the awkward bits quietly pushed off stage.

Where are the uncomfortable truths? Slavery. The destruction and displacement of Native American nations. Segregation. Political repression. The countless people who had to fight—often against their own government—to make the lofty words of the Declaration of Independence mean something in practice.

Real history is complicated. It isn't a marketing campaign.

Every nation has moments to celebrate, but mature democracies don't strengthen themselves by airbrushing the past. They do so by confronting it honestly.

What disappoints me most is that this glossy, sanitised narrative seems to assume Americans can't handle the truth about their own history. Frankly, I think that's insulting. The American people are perfectly capable of understanding that their country's story is one of extraordinary achievements and profound failures.

You don't honour a nation by pretending it was flawless.

You honour it by trusting its citizens with the truth.

As I said before - If a nation's history only leaves you feeling proud, you've probably been taught mythology rather than history.

"The greatest insult isn't telling Americans the truth about their history. It's assuming they need to be protected from it."

That seems to be happening at the National Park & Monuments as well as the Smithsonian. Luckily not the Library of Congress (yet).

20 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Kiss my grits.

Now that's American!

19 hours ago, save the frogs said:

This is interesting.

Trump reads children's book "Presidents Play", which shows what former Presidents did outside the White House for relaxation.

Clinton had a track built and went for runs.

Lincoln rode a horse

Quincy Adams swam

Carter played tennis

Obama played basketball

Trump takes jabs at Obama and Biden. He really doesn't like these two.

But compliments several of the other former presidents

And Trump eats McDonalds (support American business!) cheats at golf!

15 hours ago, KhunLA said:

If not for USA & RU, UK & EU would be speaking German.

How silly & far back do we want to go. If not for France, Spain & Russia, USA would only consist of the original 13 colonies / states. About 1.1M sq km, about the size of present Ethiopia or Bolivia.

Far cry from the current 9.14 Million square kilometers.

Size really doesn't matter!

6 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn is a fantastic look at the US. Most history is taught by wars. Zinn teaches history from ordinary people's POV. Studs Terkel's oral histories are also wonderful resources.

Howard Zinn and Studs Terkel are certainly worth reading, but they represent just one approach to studying history rather than history itself.

One of the biggest misconceptions is that history is simply learning dates, kings and battles. That's really just one branch of the discipline.

History can be studied chronologically (Ancient, Medieval, Modern, Contemporary), or thematically through political, social, cultural, economic, intellectual, environmental, diplomatic and, yes, military history. Each asks different questions and uses different sources.

Zinn's work falls largely within social history, deliberately shifting the focus away from political leaders and towards ordinary people. Terkel's oral histories are another valuable methodology, capturing the experiences of people who actually lived through events.

BUT - The problem is that oral history also has limitations. Human memory is imperfect. People forget, compress events, unconsciously reshape memories, and often reinterpret the past through the lens of the present. The interview itself can influence the answers given, and only those who survive and are willing to speak become part of the historical record.

That's why professional historians don't simply accept oral testimony at face value. They cross-reference it with official records, newspapers, letters, diaries, census data, archaeological evidence and countless other primary sources.

No single methodology tells the whole story.

Military history without social history is incomplete. Social history without political or economic context is equally incomplete. Oral testimony without documentary evidence can be misleading, just as official government records can be selective or self-serving.

Good history isn't about choosing one perspective over another—it's about weighing all the available evidence and recognising the strengths and weaknesses of every source.

That's also why history is an academic discipline rather than simply a collection of interesting stories.

I think this is actually a stronger rebuttal because it includes Zinn and Terkel within the discipline instead of dismissing them. It demonstrates an understanding of historiography while making the implicit point that historical scholarship is much broader than a single school of thought. That tends to persuade readers who are undecided, rather than only those who already agree with you.

8 hours ago, Trippy said:

If it wasn't for the Americans, the French and the Brits would be speaking German.

tht just shows a huge ignorance of history - can you actually explain yourself and support it with reason and logic? If anything both US and UK would be speaking Russian as they do in pts of Ukraine.

7 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

Now that's American!

7 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

Now that's American!

This is the thing about “American” it is often old English…..

 

“Kids my grits” is a TV friendly version of “kiss my ass”

 

But grits itself is old English from grytt and grēot (meaning gravel or sand), then there is the indigenous American part; the dish itself was invented by the Muscogee tribe centuries ago. They ground dried corn into a coarse porridge it was called “rockahomine”. English colonists combined the Native American base with their own word for ground corn and called it "hominy grits", which is now usually shortened to just "grits”.

 

So you have to be careful what you mean if you claim it as “American”

 

51 minutes ago, kwilco said:

tht just shows a huge ignorance of history - can you actually explain yourself and support it with reason and logic? If anything both US and UK would be speaking Russian as they do in pts of Ukraine.

The original poster is correct. The USA saved your country during World War II.

2 hours ago, kwilco said:

Howard Zinn and Studs Terkel are certainly worth reading, but they represent just one approach to studying history rather than history itself.

One of the biggest misconceptions is that history is simply learning dates, kings and battles. That's really just one branch of the discipline.

History can be studied chronologically (Ancient, Medieval, Modern, Contemporary), or thematically through political, social, cultural, economic, intellectual, environmental, diplomatic and, yes, military history. Each asks different questions and uses different sources.

Zinn's work falls largely within social history, deliberately shifting the focus away from political leaders and towards ordinary people. Terkel's oral histories are another valuable methodology, capturing the experiences of people who actually lived through events.

BUT - The problem is that oral history also has limitations. Human memory is imperfect. People forget, compress events, unconsciously reshape memories, and often reinterpret the past through the lens of the present. The interview itself can influence the answers given, and only those who survive and are willing to speak become part of the historical record.

That's why professional historians don't simply accept oral testimony at face value. They cross-reference it with official records, newspapers, letters, diaries, census data, archaeological evidence and countless other primary sources.

No single methodology tells the whole story.

Military history without social history is incomplete. Social history without political or economic context is equally incomplete. Oral testimony without documentary evidence can be misleading, just as official government records can be selective or self-serving.

Good history isn't about choosing one perspective over another—it's about weighing all the available evidence and recognising the strengths and weaknesses of every source.

That's also why history is an academic discipline rather than simply a collection of interesting stories.

I think this is actually a stronger rebuttal because it includes Zinn and Terkel within the discipline instead of dismissing them. It demonstrates an understanding of historiography while making the implicit point that historical scholarship is much broader than a single school of thought. That tends to persuade readers who are undecided, rather than only those who already agree with you.

2 hours ago, kwilco said:

Howard Zinn and Studs Terkel are certainly worth reading, but they represent just one approach to studying history rather than history itself.

One of the biggest misconceptions is that history is simply learning dates, kings and battles. That's really just one branch of the discipline.

History can be studied chronologically (Ancient, Medieval, Modern, Contemporary), or thematically through political, social, cultural, economic, intellectual, environmental, diplomatic and, yes, military history. Each asks different questions and uses different sources.

Zinn's work falls largely within social history, deliberately shifting the focus away from political leaders and towards ordinary people. Terkel's oral histories are another valuable methodology, capturing the experiences of people who actually lived through events.

BUT - The problem is that oral history also has limitations. Human memory is imperfect. People forget, compress events, unconsciously reshape memories, and often reinterpret the past through the lens of the present. The interview itself can influence the answers given, and only those who survive and are willing to speak become part of the historical record.

That's why professional historians don't simply accept oral testimony at face value. They cross-reference it with official records, newspapers, letters, diaries, census data, archaeological evidence and countless other primary sources.

No single methodology tells the whole story.

Military history without social history is incomplete. Social history without political or economic context is equally incomplete. Oral testimony without documentary evidence can be misleading, just as official government records can be selective or self-serving.

Good history isn't about choosing one perspective over another—it's about weighing all the available evidence and recognising the strengths and weaknesses of every source.

That's also why history is an academic discipline rather than simply a collection of interesting stories.

I think this is actually a stronger rebuttal because it includes Zinn and Terkel within the discipline instead of dismissing them. It demonstrates an understanding of historiography while making the implicit point that historical scholarship is much broader than a single school of thought. That tends to persuade readers who are undecided, rather than only those who already agree with you.

I have been reading a very thorough and interesting book by Donny Gluckstein, A People's History of the Second World War: Resistance versus Empire. Of course, the author quotes both Zinn and Terkel!

The thesis is that two parallel wars were taking place. The official military war of Allies against Axis that was essentially a imperialist war from both sides.

The second war was that waged by the underground people's resistance.

Fascinating stuff.

"The USA was equally cynical in its approach to peace. As one leading politician put it: ‘As things are now going, the peace we will make, the peace we seem to be making, will be a peace of oil, a peace of gold, a peace of shipping ... without moral purpose ... .’ Devoid of moral purpose, maybe, but Hull, Roosevelt’s Secretary of State, explained the USA would lead ‘a new system of international relationships ... primarily for reasons of pure national self-interest."

That continues to this day.

20 minutes ago, unblocktheplanet said:

I have been reading a very thorough and interesting book by Donny Gluckstein, A People's History of the Second World War: Resistance versus Empire. Of course, the author quotes both Zinn and Terkel!

The thesis is that two parallel wars were taking place. The official military war of Allies against Axis that was essentially a imperialist war from both sides.

The second war was that waged by the underground people's resistance.

Fascinating stuff.

"The USA was equally cynical in its approach to peace. As one leading politician put it: ‘As things are now going, the peace we will make, the peace we seem to be making, will be a peace of oil, a peace of gold, a peace of shipping ... without moral purpose ... .’ Devoid of moral purpose, maybe, but Hull, Roosevelt’s Secretary of State, explained the USA would lead ‘a new system of international relationships ... primarily for reasons of pure national self-interest."

That continues to this day.

The description of U.S. foreign policy as "devoid of moral purpose" and led by a "Hull" (referring to Cordell Hull, Secretary of State under Franklin D. Roosevelt) does not align with the provided search context, which emphasizes that U.S. policy was driven by a blend of enlightened self-interest, moral principles, and the promotion of international order under law.

Cordell Hull's Vision and Moral Imperatives In addresses attributed to the Secretary of State during the Roosevelt administration, the U.S. stance is described as fervently attached to principles underlying international order, arguing that abandoning these would lead to "international anarchy" and a relapse into "barbarism." The text explicitly rejects isolationism, stating that turning away from global problems would cause the U.S. to become a "self-constituted hermit state" with lower living standards and economic distress. The policy aims to establish a world where "order under law" prevails and where a single code of morality, honor, justice, and fair play applies to both individuals and nations.

National Interest and Global Stability While the documents acknowledge that U.S. actions are dictated by "enlightened self-interest," they argue that national security is inextricably linked to the maintenance of orderly processes in international relationships. The Secretary of State asserts that legitimate national interests abroad must be protected to prevent the shrinking of international economic and cultural relationships. This approach is summarized by Franklin D. Roosevelt's statement that "America actively engages in the search for peace," combining the maintenance of national strength and moral standards with participation in efforts toward world progress and peace.

21 minutes ago, unblocktheplanet said:

The thesis is that two parallel wars were taking place. The official military war of Allies against Axis that was essentially a imperialist war from both sides.

Hold on! Can we clarify who actually initiated the war?

Edited Wednesday at 05:30 PM5 days by temuFarang

12 hours ago, temuFarang said:

The description of U.S. foreign policy as "devoid of moral purpose" and led by a "Hull" (referring to Cordell Hull, Secretary of State under Franklin D. Roosevelt) does not align with the provided search context, which emphasizes that U.S. policy was driven by a blend of enlightened self-interest, moral principles, and the promotion of international order under law.

Cordell Hull's Vision and Moral Imperatives In addresses attributed to the Secretary of State during the Roosevelt administration, the U.S. stance is described as fervently attached to principles underlying international order, arguing that abandoning these would lead to "international anarchy" and a relapse into "barbarism." The text explicitly rejects isolationism, stating that turning away from global problems would cause the U.S. to become a "self-constituted hermit state" with lower living standards and economic distress. The policy aims to establish a world where "order under law" prevails and where a single code of morality, honor, justice, and fair play applies to both individuals and nations.

National Interest and Global Stability While the documents acknowledge that U.S. actions are dictated by "enlightened self-interest," they argue that national security is inextricably linked to the maintenance of orderly processes in international relationships. The Secretary of State asserts that legitimate national interests abroad must be protected to prevent the shrinking of international economic and cultural relationships. This approach is summarized by Franklin D. Roosevelt's statement that "America actively engages in the search for peace," combining the maintenance of national strength and moral standards with participation in efforts toward world progress and peace.

12 hours ago, temuFarang said:

The description of U.S. foreign policy as "devoid of moral purpose" and led by a "Hull" (referring to Cordell Hull, Secretary of State under Franklin D. Roosevelt) does not align with the provided search context, which emphasizes that U.S. policy was driven by a blend of enlightened self-interest, moral principles, and the promotion of international order under law.

Cordell Hull's Vision and Moral Imperatives In addresses attributed to the Secretary of State during the Roosevelt administration, the U.S. stance is described as fervently attached to principles underlying international order, arguing that abandoning these would lead to "international anarchy" and a relapse into "barbarism." The text explicitly rejects isolationism, stating that turning away from global problems would cause the U.S. to become a "self-constituted hermit state" with lower living standards and economic distress. The policy aims to establish a world where "order under law" prevails and where a single code of morality, honor, justice, and fair play applies to both individuals and nations.

National Interest and Global Stability While the documents acknowledge that U.S. actions are dictated by "enlightened self-interest," they argue that national security is inextricably linked to the maintenance of orderly processes in international relationships. The Secretary of State asserts that legitimate national interests abroad must be protected to prevent the shrinking of international economic and cultural relationships. This approach is summarized by Franklin D. Roosevelt's statement that "America actively engages in the search for peace," combining the maintenance of national strength and moral standards with participation in efforts toward world progress and peace.

No source but I don't believe a word of it. Thailand doesn't bother to hide its corruption. Western countries have it down to a practiced art. All wars/conflicts have nothing to do with moral authority. They are naked or concealed imperialism by trying to rearrange the geopolitical order. Morality, honor, justice and fair play. In what universe?

12 hours ago, temuFarang said:

Hold on! Can we clarify who actually initiated the war?

The Allies would argue that Germany started the war by annexing Poland. But who bombed first--the Allies.

6 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

The Allies would argue that Germany started the war by annexing Poland. But who bombed first--the Allies.

Did you mean to say the invasion of Poland, followed by the invasion of Denmark and Norway, then the invasion of the Low Countries, and finally the invasion of France? This was followed by the invasion of the USSR.

6 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

No source but I don't believe a word of it. Thailand doesn't bother to hide its corruption. Western countries have it down to a practiced art. All wars/conflicts have nothing to do with moral authority. They are naked or concealed imperialism by trying to rearrange the geopolitical order. Morality, honor, justice and fair play. In what universe?

Naturally, you don't believe any of it; it contradicts your skewed worldview.

An inflammatory post and a reply has been removed.

22 hours ago, kwilco said:

tht just shows a huge ignorance of history - can you actually explain yourself and support it with reason and logic? If anything both US and UK would be speaking Russian as they do in pts of Ukraine.

Can you dispute it with reason and logic?

22 hours ago, temuFarang said:

The original poster is correct. The USA saved your country during World War II.

That you seem to think this statement is "correct" shows how little you know about or understand history? Sadly it shows you really don't know where to start or join in on this topic as you haven't got the background knowledge of the methodologies involved.

PS – What do you even mean by "your country"? It was a "WORLD WAR", you know

3 hours ago, kwilco said:

That you seem to think this statement is "correct" shows how little you know about or understand history? Sadly it shows you really don't know where to start or join in on this topic as you haven't got the background knowledge of the methodologies involved.

PS – What do you even mean by "your country"? It was a "WORLD WAR", you know

My country is the reason the Allies won WW2.