Not Always Finding The Truth Of Facts In American History

By Author: Gianni Truvianni
Total Articles: 32
Comment this article

In starting this topic I believe that before one discusses any subject it is always wise to define the subject one is discussing, therefore according to this idea let us say fully what history is. History by my personal definition is the events of the past regarding people as well as nature. The past meaning something which is not current for instance World War 2 which is now a part of history contrary to the conflict or war in Iraq or Afghanistan which definitely are not in the past. For my own I would have history as being true stories contrary to the ones in fiction which did not.

However if the subject be American history then it must be stated here that contrary to what many may think it did not begin on the 4th of July, 1776 when in the year of our lord a group of men, who for many reasons not all of them being love of country signed a piece of paper called The Declaration of Independence. American history as such goes back further much in the same way German and Italian history (though perhaps not as far back) which also did not start when these two nations unified a little under 150 years ago. Historical events ...
... in the part of the world which today is known as the United States of America (as opposed to Brazil whose official name is the United States of Brazil ) at least as far as European settlement be the case go back further. All the way back to the beginning of the 16th century when The Virginia Company landed and settled in the new world with the now famous captain John Smith. A man who would go on to be recorded in the pages of history more for his relationship with the legendary Pocahontas then for all his previous adventures. As a foot note to this story I might add that what little is known of what transpired between Pocahontas and John Smith comes to us from John Smith himself and has never been confirmed by other sources not even Pocahontas herself.

With regards to what can be called American history it like that of any other nation was written by people who are not only capable of error but of altering facts or leaving them out for their own benefit or for those who have something to benefit from it, making it hard for those who seek to learn facts to do so. An example of leaving out facts perhaps for convenience sake or for not being considered by some to be significant enough to mention is the fact that George Washington prior to being named commander-in-chief of the continental army was financially indebted to the British Crown. Knowing this fact does not make it hard to see why he would stand to benefit in more ways then one from the colonies becoming independent. Of coarse we should not interpret this fact that his motives were purely self-serving but on the other hand it is a fact that should not be ignored as it is just that, a fact.

American history also like that of any other country has its share of wars which people knew not at the time the reasons that send them to battle but went with the idea my country, right or wrong! A perfect example of this though not the only might be the wars that were fought first between Texas and the Republic of Mexico and then the United States and again the Republic of Mexico.

The first of these wars serving to liberate Texas from the oppression of the Santana lead government. Santana being the man who had recently overthrown the Mexican constitution declaring himself dictator of the Republic of Mexico. To many this might justify a war or movement for independence but there is one thing that people like Samuel Houston left in vagueness. The lack of clarity coming in the form of failing to mention that the Mexican oppression they were fighting against was Mexico's new law that took away the right of some individuals to own other human beings in a practice known as slavery. Perhaps disclosure of this fact would not have altered much as the United States (only in its southern states) was also a republic that had laws that allowed for such practices.

The United States official stance in this affair at the time was one of neutrality, at least such is the version that is held as true in the pages of American history but is there accuracy to be found in this explanation? To my way of seeing things it is hard for me to imagine this might have been the case given that Santana was taken prisoner and held in Washington D.C. for a month after being captured at the Battle of San Jacinto. Naturally Santana was not kept in Washington DC as a tourist as it was during his stay that he was forced to sign a treaty handing the Mexican land known as Texas its independence. This reality makes those with minds who question instead of accepting blindly ask why were these the actions of the United States government if in fact they had no dealing in the Texas-Mexican War?

The United States however is not alone in this sort of tactics in the way it teaches its own history. Did not the British do likewise when they informed their subjects that their war against China, which history would label as The Opium War was because China was placing limitations on their trade? Perhaps not making it abundantly clear that this trade was in a substance which most countries of today have made illegal.

Naturally when running over the events of American history one finds out that the discrepancies between what can be found in the text books on the subject intended for high schools students and the reality of what actually did occur extend beyond the war that was fought between Texas and Mexico and in to so many other aspects that it would be impossible to list them all. I might however give the case of scalping which was originally credited as an Indian (or Native American) innovation which has now a days been for the most part accepted as an invention of the white man that was continued by Indians.

Of coarse one would also have to take in to account that certain facts only become known after a certain period of time has elapsed. This perhaps justified by how certain truths being known at certain periods of time are not always in everybody's best interest as their disclosure may cause some to loose face. As was the case for Bravet General George A. Custer who along with his men was believed to have been the victim of an Indian massacre at the battle of Little Bighorn. This again proving not to be accurate when evidence emerged that it was Custer's military incompetence that lead to not only to his own demise but that of his 7th cavalry and not being heavily outnumbered by 1800 braves. This a number which historians have come to believe was far less perhaps even as low as 900. Perhaps it was the need to create a national hero or shame at seeing a West Point graduate and Civil War hero being outwitted by 2 Indian commanders (Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse) that lead to denial of the fact that Custer divided his forces of 600 even when aware that he would be facing superior numbers. It is with this in mind that I declare that one's history teachings be they from school or books should always be consumed with at least a teaspoon of skepticism. Reason for last statement being how it would not be a first for lies to be passed as truth as has been so many times the case not only in American history but world history. This perhaps could be exemplified by how the Katin Massacre of Polish officers during World War 2 was originally blamed on the Third Reich only to be discovered later that in fact it had been the Soviets all along who were responsible for this killing.

Another example from world history of how facts have been altered through out the course of history was during World War 1. It was in this war that British passenger ships (notably the Lusitanian) were being sunk by German submarines which of coarse was a violation of international law. This was a fact however which was only one in a chain that included several others which were carefully omitted. Under international law for a ship to be considered a passenger ship it did not suffice for that ship to be carrying passengers, that ship could not be carrying weapons in the form of cannons or torpedoes of any kind, armed or unarmed, mounted or other wise. In the case of the so called British passenger ships some of them were transporting weapons (naturally hidden from the view passengers) which though not mounted for use did violate international law with regards to what constituted a passenger ship and therefore making them legitimate military targets like any other war ship.

From this article one can gather that many events are changed because of convenience in a desire to create strong sentiments of love toward a nation by sacrificing the truth. Perhaps it is not with malice that this tends to occur for it maybe with the purpose of presenting a wholesome view of the facts which may turn them in to fiction. This last view is the reason I have opted to write this article, as a form that perhaps will encourage people to seek out the truth in past events fore it is the present that is what it is because the actions the past made it such.

On lighter side of this subject I will state that alternating historical facts is not an act of governments alone. For the film industry can be found at fault as well specially when making supposedly historically based films. There are many examples of films that have basically trampled on historical reality but let us take the example of Alexander, The Great (directed by Oliver Stone, released in 2005) which for the most part remains loyal to the facts till the film arrived in India. It was in India were this American film (which already had taken its liberties with the facts) was tainted to depict Alexander being killed in India during the Battle of The Hydaspes River which contradicts the factual account that Alexander died of fever in Babylon.