| Should we not question history ?
Posted: 12/30/2007 9:38:04 AM | because the English were sailing in their sea does NOT mean our Navy/Armada was really defeated by them.
as far as i know, the English ships were smaller than ours, and we had more ships. it WAS the bad weather which damaged our ships, so most of sailors died in the sea. and the rest of them arriving to the shores were KILLED by the natives (at least according to our books). perhaps a few of them settled into the population, but most of them were brutally killed.
had the English ships not been smaller they would have suffered the tempest and lost their ships as well, sure!
anyway, we were not able to invade England | |
|
| Should we not question history ?
Posted: 12/30/2007 9:49:53 AM | I've heard other people come out in defence of mahmoud amajinedad saying that what he said was a mistranslation , so , i delved into it a bit more , because , i question everything.
To say he has no power in Iran is ludicrous. Hes the president , and second only to Khomeni ( kinda like the relationship between the queen and the prime minister ) who is only really a figurehead.
a) amajinedad is actively engaged in paving the way for the mahdi ( 12th imam )
b) He said Israel should be wiped off the map ( and the accurate translation is one of shaving off a beard and burning the stubble )
c) He denies the holocaust ever happened
d) He funds hezbollah to fight a proxy war against israel , and is in league with syria who also want israel gone
However , what we believe to be truth depends largely on which side of the fence we sympathise with and choose in a fundamental way , who we will allign ourselves with.
If you dont like israel , you're already prepared to believe anything which agrees with your own basic allignment. | |
|
| Should we not question history ?
Posted: 12/30/2007 9:51:23 AM | Ahh foshxy
There are certain things that are extremely well documented and, in my opinion, should NOT be questioned. The holocaust being one of them.
I disagree .censorship is good for nobody .The documentary I watched talks about the use of Cyclon B to kill lice in the clothing worn by the prisoners at Auschwitz and this is why it is documented by the Germans . Should this not be questioned .Surely not to do so is to behave like an ostrich . | |
|
| Should we not question history ?
Posted: 12/30/2007 9:52:02 AM | because the English were sailing in their sea does NOT mean our Navy/Armada was really defeated by them.
Are you related to uncle Albert?
at least according to our books
Your books are hardly going to admit to such a triumphant victory by the English now are they !!
it WAS the bad weather which damaged our ships,
Somethings in history dont change do they ..........it just goes to show we still have the finest "craftsmen/Tradesmen " in the world !! We Knew how to build those ships and make them last !!
OT History is the foundation to our future !! | |
|
| Should we not question history ?
Posted: 12/30/2007 10:34:26 AM | I think the question is a very good one.
Others have already mentioned the problem of inconsistencies and inaccuracies, whether by bias or simple error, that occur in 'rews' reports and other 'factual' accounts that are offered to us. These things need to be questioned. However there is a second problem which is that most people are not taught *how* to question things and the result is a great deal of cynicism and nonsense.
I would like to see people taught how to analyse texts, how to delve into reports. People need to be taught to understand the process by which 'news' (i.e. accounts of recent events) and 'history' (i.e. accounts of older events) are constructed. People need to be taught how to reason, how to recognise what is truly rational or irrational and not to confuse 'rational' with 'I think I agree' and 'irrational' with 'that doesn't sound like something I want to believe'.
Without this education I think people spend a great deal of time questioning the wrong things and fretting over trivial matters that are of no significance and, as a result, they are actually more susceptible to manipulation. | |
|
| Should we not question history ?
Posted: 12/30/2007 11:52:44 AM | well......well.....
Spain was not able to invade England and turn it into a Catholic country ( it was the only purpose of our king Felipe or Phillip in english) so under this point of view, yes England defeated Spain, and i do admit it!
however, i am talking about the terrible disaster of our Navy/Armada, and the English ships really did not do much during the battle. it was the terrible weather/tempest, and it is a fact.
as for surviving sailors being killed. well that is what we have been taught at school. Ireland was and is a Catholic country (the same in Spain), and the Irish did not show any mercy for the surviving sailors, who were Catholic as well. | |
|
| Should we not question history ?
Posted: 12/30/2007 12:21:34 PM | After all, the English were sailing in the same sea....
And they could pop home for their tea, make repairs, have a bevvy or two.... I'm being silly but you get the point. I understand that the type of cannon made a difference as well, we had cast iron, the Spaniards were still using bronze, which had to be left to cool between firings. According to my recent reading (on Shakespeare actually), the English didn't lose a single ship.
Anyway, the point is, the tale of the Armada is usually told from the English POV because we won. History is always written by the winners so the hows, whys and wherefores are conjecture.
Yes, we should always question and aim to get as full a picture as possible.
EDIT: Sorry, I didn't see your post Pedro. The purpose was to usurp Elizabeth, a protestant and a bast@rd under Catholicism (her Mum was Anne Bolyne, 2nd wife of H 8), and bring England back to the Pope. | |
|
| Should we not question history ?
Posted: 12/30/2007 12:47:48 PM |
I disagree .censorship is good for nobody .The documentary I watched talks about the use of Cyclon B to kill lice in the clothing worn by the prisoners at Auschwitz and this is why it is documented by the Germans . Should this not be questioned .Surely not to do so is to behave like an ostrich
It is Zyclon.... Anyway, the Germans have claimed this, yet the gas was only safe when a certain chemical was added to it to make it safe. This was not done by the Nazis, they knew what the gas did.
Clockwork Monkey raised a very good point, but i feel that is more to do with the vastly ignored groups that were exterminated by the Nazis.
Basically, if you were disabled, black, asian, Catholic, Gypsies, Homosexuals or anything other than Aryan, you were against Hitlers ideal of a "perfect race". | |
|
| Should we not question history ?
Posted: 12/30/2007 1:42:30 PM |
Spain was not able to invade England and turn it into a Catholic country ( it was the only purpose of our king Felipe or Phillip in english) so under this point of view, yes England defeated Spain, and i do admit it! however, i am talking about the terrible disaster of our Navy/Armada, and the English ships really did not do much during the battle. it was the terrible weather/tempest, and it is a fact.
The records show that the English fleet was in the same water as the Spanish, and enduring the same weather conditions. If even we didn't have superior fire-power (which we did) the Spanish sailors weren't able to cope with the prevailing conditions.
Sadly, they weren't able to return in perfect conditions........lol
English lesson: defeat- prevent an aim from being achieved.
OT History should always be questioned - the depth of that is up to the individual. | |
|
| Should we not question history ?
Posted: 12/30/2007 2:42:54 PM | The Spanish Armada of 1588 (there were several armadas, the 1588 was the biggy)
<div class="quote">however, i am talking about the terrible disaster of our Navy/Armada, and the English ships really did not do much during the battle. it was the terrible weather/tempest, and it is a fact.
The weather was bad, this was fact, the rest of what you posted is not. The reasons the English beat the Spanish? They line up.
1. The English ships were more advanced, Liz 1 had spent years anticipating attacks and had spent money on keep the latest tech for her army.
2. The English fleet was captained by top ranking men, who knew what they were doing from years at sea, the Spanish were captained by a pretty useless man (Duke of Medina Sedonia) who had no business being on a boat, he was clueless
3. The Spanish ships were mainly for ferrying men, not for advanced sea battles.
4. A lot of ships doesn't mean victory, once the English had the great plan of using fireships, it was very easy to split the large formation up, it was nigh on impossible to keep control of it.
5. The guns on the Spanish ships were land guns, which had a shorter range, took longer to reload, and had big wheels that sent them reeling backwards, the English used sea guns, the ones on 4 little wheels.
6. The weather, it helped scatter the Spanish fleet, but really they had already lost by then.
The 1588 Armada was destroyed by better sailors, tactics, ships, guns etc.
As for Pearl Harbour, it is acknowledged that the US had cracked the codes a long time before the date. The official stance is that they did not have the manpower to sift through the huge amounts of data to relay the information on time to the correct channels. | |
|
| Should we not question history ?
Posted: 12/30/2007 3:21:30 PM | Nice thread, I think it's wise to question what folk have written down as 'fact', and not just their point of view.
I bet 'both sides' would have written differently about, say, 9/11, the Holocaust or Pearl Harbour, from your list. We don't always have a record of all viewpoints, so asking questions, or doing some research is healthy.
I'm currently trying to convince my teenage son that just because somebody has typed it on the internet, doesn't mean it's true, or not ENTIRELY true. | |
|
| Should we not question history ?
Posted: 12/30/2007 3:41:04 PM | The Spanish Armada of 1588 (there were several armadas, the 1588 was the biggy)
The Spanish Armarda was for the most part destroyed by the storm. Think Drake and his cronies sank about 3 of them. They did however scatter them and to avoid further action they took off up channel. The British fleet returned to port the Spanish suffered at sea.
Pearl Harbour was a case of someone taking a lesson frm history. Yamamoto based his plan on the British attack on the Italian fleet a year before in Taranto | |
|
| Should we not question history ?
Posted: 12/30/2007 3:43:29 PM | Only 3? My, you must have amazing sources.
Drake was one of the captains. Howard of Effingham was in charge of the show. And no doubt the storm destroyed more ships, but it wasn't the reason for victory. It cemented a total and dominant victory that left the Philip reeling. | |
|
| Should we not question history ?
Posted: 12/30/2007 3:52:15 PM |
Only 3? My, you must have amazing sources.
I cannot find any sites which provide a higher figure.
The point is, the English sailors were able to use the conditions far better than the Spanish. | |
|
| Should we not question history ?
Posted: 12/30/2007 3:54:17 PM | I did say about 3. can't remember my sources but have read accounts from both sides more years ago than I can remember.
But there you go an example of History being biased or what is generally conceived being wrong.
I mention Drake because he is the one remembered by the popular history. (I did say and his cronies by which I meant the entire fleet) | |
|
| Should we not question history ?
Posted: 12/30/2007 4:17:32 PM |
But there you go an example of History being biased or what is generally conceived being wrong.
I know what you mean! I was brought up in Germany and thought that throughout the WW2 there may have been around 50 concentration/hard labour/death/extermintion camps, then last night I found out that there was over 2,000 in Poland alone ....my blood ran cold I can tell you! | |
|
| Should we not question history ?
Posted: 12/30/2007 10:38:05 PM | yeah good question they made my name sake a villian but he wasn`t he never made love to the russian queen eithetr but i been to a death camp no bird sing there in one hut was filled with shoes to the roof but there his good and bad in everyone hiter starlin
and saddam was all dictator`s the russian king i put amonst them i also would like to add i dont trust the keneddy clan they had m monroe killed and their father didnt want the u.s. in the war America was warned two years before it was to be attckedby Japan by Russia they ingnored the warning We was told not to trust countries like afganistan and iraq and some other`s by eygpt and isreal intelligence and some reports was made false to get rid of a mad man which was made by both isreal and eygpt what would of happened if the great gun was made but now we have to look at pacistan they are the next threatif mad men get in and use the nukes they are building if laden gets them then they will be hell to pay but i hope for peace to riegn there should be a clear universal cry no more nuclear plants to be built anywhere we must protect our planet instead no more trees to be distroyed without replacing them we lost forrest in this country has well we built wooden ships half of woodland was used to build ships like the pelican which was renamed the golden hind and my friend who mentioned the muslim sailors of the spanish fleet they was rower`s who was chained to them by the spanish inquistion for there beleave so was some english sailors in the spanish fleet. dont anyone ever sea the film with errol flynn while i am on the subject
of him he worked for peace 2 | |
|
| Should we not question history ?
Posted: 12/30/2007 11:51:07 PM | did say about 3. can't remember my sources but have read accounts from both sides more years ago than I can remember.
But there you go an example of History being biased or what is generally conceived being wrong.
I mention Drake because he is the one remembered by the popular history. (I did say and his cronies by which I meant the entire fleet)
It was 3 by reports!
Biased in the sense then that many English people believed that it was the English ships that destroyed the Armada? If that is true then yeh, it's best to learn the truth. It is also biased to say that it was the weather that won the day. It wasn't, it was the weather that made it a disaster of unusual proportions and catastrophic defeat for the continents only land superpower.
You mention popular history, and that is the problem. I think most school boys can tell you what happened. This event was covered in 3rd year secondary when I was at school, though I studied it deeper at A-level. The English might like to believe Drake sank all the ships, the Spanish might like to believe the weather was the cause of defeat etc. It's more complex when you look at it. E.G. People forget that the 'Great Armada' was really a bunch of ships designed for ferrying people and was not looking for a sea-fight, not advanced warships like the English had.
I remember being at Uni with an Irish fella, who told me all my history were bollox, or biased or whatever. He got taught a slightly different version of the British Empire, the version from the POV of the person getting trodden on. It helped me realise there is always three sides to every position. | |
|
| Should we not question history ?
Posted: 12/31/2007 9:48:47 AM | the English ships were smaller so they were able to resist the bad weather at sea, it is a fact! and let us not forget that many of them returned before the 'naval battle' took place.
i am not denying that Spain really lost, England was not invaded nor did it turn into a Catholic country, so yes we lost
however, it is untrue and unfair to say that our fleet was destroyed by the English during the naval battle.
in fact, there was not a real naval battle, i mean, a naval battle as it should be. most of our ships were destroyed by the storm, and it is a fact.
by the way, it is a pity that you all have forgotten that our main task was to invade England, so that explains that our ships were mainly to carry soldiers/royal marines (therefore, the English ships were smaller and better for sea battle).
without the storm, our ships full of soldiers might have reached the land (and maybe nowadays we might be talking about a Spanish England with Catholic faith), or our ships might have been destroyed more easily. who knows?
anyone, happy new year everyone | |
|
| Should we not question history ?
Posted: 12/31/2007 9:56:08 AM | the English ships were smaller so they were able to resist the bad weather at sea, it is a fact! and let us not forget that many of them returned before the 'naval battle' took place.
The English ships were smaller than the big galleons, but there were a lot of comparable in size if not ability Spanish ships.
i am not denying that Spain really lost, England was not invaded nor did it turn into a Catholic country, so yes we lost
Yes. the aim of the Spanish was to land, the aim of the English was to prevent this, if the army had landed it would have all been over.
however, it is untrue and unfair to say that our fleet was destroyed by the English during the naval battle.
I don't think anyone said this. I listed the reasons why the English won. not that they destroyed a fleet.
in fact, there was not a real naval battle, i mean, a naval battle as it should be. most of our ships were destroyed by the storm, and it is a fact.
Yes there was a naval battle.
by the way, it is a pity that you all have forgotten that our main task was to invade England, so that explains that our ships were mainly to carry soldiers/royal marines (therefore, the English ships were smaller and better for sea battle).
I said this. The Spanish ships were for ferrying the army mostly and were not equipped to handle the English ships, this is one of the reasons for the loss.
without the storm, our ships full of soldiers might have reached the land (and maybe nowadays we might be talking about a Spanish England with Catholic faith), or our ships might have been destroyed more easily. who knows?
That certainly is possible. Who knows where it would have gone. Santa Cruz would have had a better shot at it than Medina Sedonia. | |
|
| Should we not question history ?
Posted: 12/31/2007 9:57:47 AM | | Funny enough Foxy, Catholics were pretty much safe from Hitlers regime, and a fair amount of the caatholic clergy helped single out people for persecution. | |
|
| Should we not question history ?
Posted: 12/31/2007 10:39:03 AM | Italian Catholics were safe when residing in Germany, mainly because Italy was on "their" side. German Catholics who refused to have their bibles replaced by Mein Kampf were targets towards the end of the war when the nazis (i dont believe they deserve a capital letter ) were frantic to rid the country of any non worshipers of Hitler and his ideals.
There is no doubt that Jews were his main target but other groups were rounded up and sent to the concentration camps. The death camps were mainly for the Jews though | |
|
| Should we not question history ?
Posted: 12/31/2007 10:49:07 AM | Ohh god don't get me started on grammer Foxy..the capital letter recognises they existed as a named/titled group ...lest we forget ...
I collect books written from the 'victims' point of view .. even the Catholics in Poland were safe ...not that it was their fault they were safe, that's just the way this bitter cookie crumbled
At the end of the day there weren't many people that weren't victims of this war in one way or another! | |
|
| |
| Should we not question history ?
Posted: 12/31/2007 1:01:59 PM | | I remember a programme on the radio talking about the Jews in Poland and how they were protected by the Poles because they simply wouldn't co-operate with the (n)azis in identifying them or revealing the location of those that were hidden. | |
|
Home
login 
