Category Archives: History

Today, we have access to more historic information than ever before. New information that counteracts the old historical “truths,” are becoming more and more common today, thanks to the discoveries of numerous experts. Though this is the case today and has been for the last one hundred years or so, the history textbooks provided in high school and college courses are limited in information. This is as if these history textbooks were designed to push out a certain narrative regardless of it being the truly accurate one. In the first ten lessons of the Ron Paul Curriculum grade twelve history course this issue is discussed. Why do I believe that the information covered in these ten lessons is not covered in American history textbooks or courses today?

    An example of how a certain narrative that is not necessarily accurate is popularized, is with the question of, “was Christopher Columbus the first person to reach North America?” This was disproved when an old Viking Village was discovered which changed the narrative to: “Vikings first who did nothing, and then Columbus who did something.” The belief is the popular one today and is widely believed by many, regardless of the truth that there have been finds in America that would disprove this belief. Even though these finds that disprove the statement are available on various sources such as the internet to some extent, many individuals do not even know of the existence of these discoveries. This is thanks to how the guilds of education and the media suppress the information of these discoveries from reaching the majority of the public.

   A number of reasons could have been the cause of this issue in the education system, but a leading one is pride. People despise being proven wrong, and history experts are likely no different. The individuals involved in the education system do not want to admit that someone else or a different group of people discovered something that was real that disproved the belief that they were pushing. The only way that these individuals would change their agenda or to begin pushing the recent and more accurate belief is if their own people made the discovery or did extra research on the already discovered new belief. Sadly, the education system truly seems to only put out new information when it benefits them at the moment. Because the information that counteracts the “Vikings first, who did nothing, then Columbus who did something,” narrative does not benefit the system, the new information will not be pushed out anytime soon. 

   In conclusion, the reason why I believe that the information covered in the first ten lessons of the grade twelve Ron Paul Curriculum course is not covered in American high schools and college textbooks today is because this information does not fit in the agenda of the American education guilds. It counteracts the narrative they have been pushing out for decades.

The individualistic view and concept of individualism has been attempted to be suppressed throughout history. The Soviet Union attempted to suppress it, China suppresses it(less so now), and even in the West the concept of individualism is suppressed, and the collectivist outlook is further encouraged. An example of one issue that reflects the individualist versus the collectivist outlook in my own time is in the form of politics. How does it do this?

A theme that is becoming more and more prevalent in this period in history in the west in regards to politics is how people tend to believe whatever they either see, read, or have been told by a news network first, before actually doing their own research. People these days tend to believe things that a majority believes in just because the majority believes in it and the state promotes it. Though there are many views held by a majority that is not problematic there are definitely many instances where the views of the majority have been problematic and objectively wrong. Even when it is clearly apparent the majority continues to believe those wrong beliefs because a large number of people believe them, and the state tells them to do so. Regardless of the political side, this is prevalent. Obvious misinformation is widely believed and accepted.

An example of how many aspects of politics reflect the individualist versus the collectivist outlook today is how different sides of a political or news story are suppressed. Because most mainstream news networks are highly biased and people are biased, most of the news media that comes out is one-sided. There is a lack of different perspectives being represented in the media. The mainstream media today is very collectivist.

Many people completely ignore or forget to acknowledge that different views exist and that they may be correct on some matters. Aspects of their worldview may be incorrect. Just because a large mass of people believes in something does not mean it is necessarily right or correct. It is best to be open to new ideas and to do self-research. It is completely alright not to agree with the majority on a clearly incorrect belief.

The individual and the collective have been at odds throughout history, with many governments, groups, and even individuals themselves attempting to suppress the individual. Though there have been many times in history where the individual seemed to have been defeated it always arises again and continues to live on no matter how great it continues to be silenced.

The 1960s and 1970s was a very unique time, with a very large cultural shift occurring. This shift was especially seen in the United States. It was a time of new ideas, and people were exploring new ways of life never like before. During this time was also the period of the Cold War which was a complex and tense situation with Russia, which left a heavy influence on this time period. In relation to the topic of this period, would I say that the world in general in the West was a dangerous place in the 60s and 70s? If so in what sense was it dangerous?

During the 1960s and 1970s the Cold War was in fledge. America and Russia had a pretty tense relationship. Though neither country was harmed in the physical military sense there still was a lot of issues with spies from either side, threats such as threats of attack from both sides, etc. The Cold War in many ways also influenced the Vietnam War which was a war against communists who were funded by the Soviets, and the non-communists who were eventually supported by the United States. The Vietnam War is one that many believe America should not have been involved in, and many Americans at the time were against the war. There were many mass anti-war protests during the United States involvement in the Vietnam War.

A very important key event was the assassination of president Kennedy in 1963, which caused a very large disruption in America. The vice president who became president, president Johnson, implemented what is called The Welfare State. Though the Welfare State seemed to be a sound thing that would help the poor it in the long run had many negative long-lasting effects, such as the loss of the work ethic. Though the Cold War, Kennedy’s assassination, the implemation of the welfare state, and the overall cultural change during this period of time caused much mental strain and stress to the people of the West, overall it was not a dangerous time. Compared to the 40s during World War II the 60s and 70s was not a dangerous time in history in the physical standpoint, though it could be said otherwise in the mental standpoint. 

In conclusion, though the 60s and 70s was a very tense and serious time in history it overall for the average American was not a dangerous time. It was a very unique time in history, where people began to lose their trust in the government, and other authority figures which had previously been fully trusted.

The 1960s and 1970s was a very unique time, with a very large cultural shift occurring especially in the United States or in the West in general during that period. It was a time of new ideas, and people were exploring new ways of life never like before. Also during this time was the period of the Cold War which was a complex and tense situation with Russia, which had a heavy influence on this time period. But would I say that the world in general in the West was a dangerous place in the 60s and 70s? If so in what sense was it dangerous?

During the 1960s and 1970s the Cold War was in full fledged, and America and Russia had a pretty tense relationship. Though neither country was harmed in the physical military sense there still was a lot of issues with spies from either side, threats such as threats of attack from both sides, etc. The Cold War in many ways also influenced the Vietnam War which was a war against communists who were funded by the Soviets, and the non-communists who were eventually supported by the United States. The Vietnam War is one that many believe America should not have been involved in, and many Americans at the time were against the war. There were many mass anti-war protests during the United States involvement in the Vietnam War.

A very important key event was the assassination of president Kennedy in 1963, which caused a very large disruption in America. The vice president who became president, president Johnson, implemented what is called The Welfare State. Though the Welfare State seemed to be a sound thing that would help the poor it in the long run had many negative long-lasting effects, such as the loss of the work ethic. Though the Cold War, Kennedy’s assassination, the implementation of the welfare state, and the overall cultural change during this period of time caused much mental strain and stress to the people of the West overall it was not a dangerous time. Compared to the 40s during World War II the 60s and 70s was not a dangerous time in history in the physical standpoint, though it could be said otherwise in the mental standpoint. 

In conclusion, though the 60s and 70s was a very tense and serious time in history it overall for the average American was not a dangerous time. It was a very unique time in history, where people began to lose their trust in the government, and other authority figures which had previously been fully trusted.

In a war, there are many motives on both sides, but revenge is a common motive in most wars. World War II in and of itself had many motives for both the Axis and Allied Powers, which influenced the course of the war. It would be naive to say that the two sides in World War II did not have any motives of revenge seeping into their war strategies. In what ways did revenge figure into the strategies of the countries fighting in World War II?

In war there is much death on both sides, in World War II, for example, there were many bombings and many innocent civilians killed along with the millions of soldiers killed, this left a very large opening to revenge seeping in as a motive. An example of how revenge figured into strategies of the countries fighting in World War II was with destructive counterattacks, which were said to be in response to an enemy attack; though that was most likely not incorrect it still does not justify the destruction that was done. 

Some towns and cities experienced siege during the war and were cut off from essentials completely which was horrific for the innocent people inside of those cities and towns. Siege is an excellent example of how revenge was a motive during the war. The war was in a constant situation of each side or country getting back at the other side or another country. If one side committed an atrocity to the other side that side would most likely commit an atrocity to the other side at one point. Neither side was not innocent of committing atrocities. It was a constant vicious cycle. 

To conclude, these are some examples of how revenge figured into the strategies of the countries fighting in World War II.

World War II(1939-1945), was a brutal war, with great mass casualties and destruction. Even greater than what had been seen before in World War I. A question to ask in regards to this war is: did World War II become more brutal as time went on? If so, in what ways did the war become more brutal? Was this brutality only on one side?

When looking at this question one most likely would only see the brutality of one side. The Axis Powers(Nazis, Italy, and Japan), were very brutal, and as the war progressed on they became more brutal. The Nazis with the mass genocide of Jews and other minorities which further developed and progressed as the war went on. The unthinkable war crimes that Japan committed to many of the Asian countries which killed millions. Though this is very much true and the reality is that the Axis Powers were probably more brutal and committed more crimes to humanity than the Allied Powers, that does not mean that the Allied Powers were not brutal themselves, and that the brutality was only on one side.

Stalin who became part of the Allied side a little later on in the war(he had originally been actually on the side of the Nazis one could say), was a terrible person to say the least, and was a mass murderer of his own people. He was very brutal to the countries that the Soviet Union occupied. The United States with it’s bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Allied side was not completely innocent.  

To conclude, though the Axis Powers most definitely committed many horrible crimes to humanity; more so than the Allied Powers, both sides including the Allied Powers were brutal during the war. This brutality increased as the war progressed on both sides.

World War II(1939-1945), is considered to be the most devastating war in Western History, with millions of lives lost, and the resources of the countries involved heavily drained. The countries that were involved by the end of the war were many and included countries such as: Germany, France, Britain, United States, Italy, Russia, Japan, etc, but also included many lesser powers which had involvement in one way or another. The beginning of the war, though very much widespread, expanded more globally during its first two and a half years. In what sense did World War II become more “global,” during its first two and a half years?

World War II began originally in Germany which had become under the control of Adolf Hitler who other than wanting to “cleanse,” Germany also wanted to have influence in other countries in Europe. Germany began taking and invading some of the countries in Europe, rapidly enough  Germany occupied a wide area of territory. Japan close at this time was also involved in their own personal expanding, and were taking and occupying countries and territories of their own. When the war progressed the two sides became more established with more countries joining on each side, which further expanded the war; in turn making it more global. Ultimately the event that really influenced the war into becoming as Global as it became was when the United States entered the war which was one of the greatest turning points in the later half of the war. 

World War II became more “global,” in the sense that more and more countries joined on different sides of the war, which greatly further expanded it. An influential country that entered the war later on in the war, was the United States which changed the course of the war. 

The aftermath of World War I was a bleak time for many countries. The countries who were involved paid a heavy price during the war and the toll in the aftermath was very apparent. Only twenty years after World War I another war broke out in Europe, which escalated into another world war, which today is remembered as World War II. What problems from World War I contributed to the outbreak of World War II?

The first problem had to do with the Peace Settlement. Germany had not been able to partake in the discussion of the Peace Settlement, and had experienced heavy negative sanctions after the War. This left much resentment in Germany, which left the country in much chaos. After the War Germany set up a new constitution which the German people had mixed feelings about. Hitler who today is very remembered for the horrific things he did before and during World War II used the German resentment to his own advantage. 

The second problem was the outbreak of the Great Depression which not only affected the United States but also heavily affected other countries especially in Europe. This created more economic instability, which caused further resentment in Germany. Hitler himself used the Great Depression as a way to step into power.

During World War I Italy was on the side of the Allied Powers, after the war Italy was expecting to receive some lands, those lands were instead given away to other countries. This left resentment on the Italian side which left a divide. The Italian Facsist leader Mussolini stepped into power which turned Italy into a facist state, which later joined on the side of Germany during World War II.

In conclusion, there were many problems that had contributed to the outbreak of World War II. The problems all began with the Peace Settlement which Germany had not been able to thoroughly negotiate with the other countries. Germany after the war had faced heavy sanctions from the Allied powers as part of the Peace Conference which left much German resentment. Along with the Great Depression, the rise of Hitler, and a handful of other factors World War II was inevitable. 

Utopia, by Thomas More(1478–1535), is a satirical and political work, which is considered to be one of the earliest dystopian pieces ever written. Thomas More is a Catholic Saint, who was Lord Chancellor of England during his lifetime. The literary piece follows the character, Raphael, who is a traveler. Raphael during his journeys, observes the political and economic situations in each country. One country in particular that he journeyed to, called Utopia, was different from all the countries he had journeyed to. Utopia is a country that is free of greed and money; a country full of peace, and in Raphael’s perspective, ideal. Throughout this piece of literature, you see a transition in Raphael’s character, from a sensible reformer to a less reasonable reformer.

At the beginning of Utopia, Raphael states that he is against standing armies and unjust punishment(execution for thieves), which sounds reasonable enough. Further in the book Raphael’s character turns to a more radical note: do away with private property, no money, governments should do away with taverns and gamblings. All of these beliefs that Raphael held were influenced by the society of Utopia, which he saw as an ideal. Utopia is a society that most would not find ideal; it is a society where there are no personal careers, there are limits on the number of children a family could have, and everyone dresses in the same way. Which explains why More built Raphael’s character by first having the character introduce the more reasonable ideas, to give the reader a subtle taste of what to expect, so when the more radical ideas are being introduced the reader would not be completely scandalized.

The majority of literate people who read this literary piece during the 16th century, and the majority of people who read Utopia, throughout the centuries would not approve of the majority of the more radical ideas introduced in the book. This is unless those radical ideas were introduced in a slower manner: reasonable, less reasonable, somewhat unreasonable, and unreasonable, to ease the reader to those ideas. 

In Utopia, the reasoning behind why Thomas More presented Raphael the traveler as a sensible reformer early in the first book, but not later on in the book, is because the majority of the beliefs portrayed in the book would not be accepted by the majority. It was a tactic most likely to help draw readers in, by first presenting the ideas that Raphael believed that was more believable first, before introducing the ideas that would be considered to be more radical.

Russia became a communist country under Lenin, who was the first of a series of leaders under the new Russian communistic government. What was the Russian like under Lenin? What kind of tasks did it attempt to achieve?

The government under Lenin was ruthless, harsh, and disastrous(the original revolutionaries had never run anything before). Lenin was a cruel and ruthless leader who exploited the people he was leading. He for example ordered the confiscation of many churches, saying that he would use the wealth of the churches toward the people. Not surprisingly enough that was very much not true and that money was used to buy weapons from Germany. During the end of his life, he ordered the exiling of many opposing scholars, which is one example of how easy it was to be deported or thrown into a prison camp in Russia at the time. The worst thing that Lenin and his government did during his leadership was being responsible for a famine that could have been prevented. This famine ended up killing over five million.

In conclusion, this was what the Russian Government under Lenin looked like, and these were some of the tasks that it attempted to achieve.