Historical accuracy of important events

[Zzzapipe]

Curious to know how accurate people think the historical events taught in our educational institutions are?

0% = complete fabrication

100% = completely accurate

Numerical values would be interesting to see.


For context:

Argentina to declassify documents about Nazi 'ratline' escape routes after WWII | The Times of Israel

www.timesofisrael.com

As a boy, I often saw hunters glow and brag about the deer they just killed, often taking pictures with the deceased animal.

From everything I heard as a little boy, I often thought how proud and famous the soldier who hunted and finally ended the life of one of the worlds most notorious killers, would be.

 

[HawkeyeLinus]

What value is there in knee jerk estimates when there are thousands of school districts in the United States and curriculum isn't homogeneous.

Just begging for an unnecessary political discussion.

The example is completely out of context. There isn't anything in there about Argentina's educational system and no suggestion history has been taught inaccurately - no secret about Nazis and South America in general - they are just lifting the veil on specifics, good for them.

The analogy to deer hunting? Come on now. Put yourself into the position of killing some notorious whomever and glorifying posing with them all you want --- it's a little macabre, to be kind, but like Argentina, nothing to do with our educational system.

 

[Zzzapipe]

24%

 

[Zzzapipe]

The analogy to deer hunting? Come on now. Put yourself into the position of killing some notorious whomever and glorifying posing with them all you want --- it's a little macabre, to be kind, but like Argentina, nothing to do with our educational system.

And yet, as a young boy I remember watching film of bodies being bulldozed into trenches while my Jesuit teachers looked on. The stories and atrocities we heard (and saw sometimes on FILM) back then….

 

[warren]

Numerical values would be interesting to see.

Interesting? Why?. Of use? Certainly not!

 

[Servant King]

14%

Being very generous here!

 

[Richmond B. Funkenhouser]

It's bad. I know that much.

I help my kid study for history tests.

 

[anotherbob]

Curious to know how accurate people think the historical events taught in our educational institutions are?

0% = complete fabrication

100% = completely accurate

Numerical values would be interesting to see.


For context:

Argentina to declassify documents about Nazi 'ratline' escape routes after WWII | The Times of Israel

www.timesofisrael.com

As a boy, I often saw hunters glow and brag about the deer they just killed, often taking pictures with the deceased animal.

From everything I heard as a little boy, I often thought how proud and famous the soldier who hunted and finally ended the life of one of the worlds most notorious killers, would be.

Well almost any summary of history is going to be flat. For many reasons. Often we're just going off of what's documented or recovered which means there is a lot of empty space to fill. It's easy to forget that people are people and where kind of just living their lives and it wasn't history at the time. And live rarely fits into a clean easy narrative outside of our own psyches, that distortion increases with time.
Even events from less then a century ago have a lot of disagreements in the details between legit and non-controversial historians just because the evidence isn't as clean and solidly certain as we would like.
That's not even going into the idea that most of the history we've been taught is a series of highlights that have the rougher edges polished off, especially when taught to younger students. Additionally a lot of "myths" and former best information available get stuck in peoples minds as fact. And it's always presented with a bias of perspective. Sometimes in a way that could be propaganda and sometimes in a way that's just human. We project our own times and perspectives into the narrative, while also forgetting how human and just like us in other ways people have always been.
So at best it's murky at worst it's fabricated.

 

[Mike N]

Curious to know how accurate people think the historical events taught in our educational institutions are?

0% = complete fabrication

100% = completely accurate

Numerical values would be interesting to see.


For context:

Argentina to declassify documents about Nazi 'ratline' escape routes after WWII | The Times of Israel

www.timesofisrael.com

As a boy, I often saw hunters glow and brag about the deer they just killed, often taking pictures with the deceased animal.

From everything I heard as a little boy, I often thought how proud and famous the soldier who hunted and finally ended the life of one of the worlds most notorious killers, would be.

Not sure how this is pipe related. Please educate me. Thanks.

 

[dogparkpiper]

Historiography

History purely as data recorded is not history per se.

History is turning data into a story. Contextualizing. analyzing. Explaining. And even questioning causes and effects.

Two historians can write a book on the same topic. Both are different in approach or emphasis on something and that’s just the nature of storytelling.

I top of that:

There is a ton of historical stuff false factually.

 

[pappymac]

It is always dependent on whose version or point of view of the historical event is being used to teach.
Someone once said, "History is written by the victor."
I would add, "History is written by who controls the media."

 

[sablebrush52]

You mean like Parson Weems?

Smarthistory – Grant Wood, Parson Weems’ Fable

smarthistory.org

 

[didimauw]

Moved to general discussion.

But I fear politics soon here.

 

[Briar Lee]

Jim Lovell died on August 7, 2025—

—-
BBC

8 August 2025
Updated 9 August 2025
Astronaut Jim Lovell, who guided the Apollo 13 mission safely back to Earth in 1970, has died aged 97.

Nasa said he had "turned a potential tragedy into a success" after an attempt to land on the Moon was aborted because of an explosion onboard the spacecraft while it was hundreds of thousands of miles from Earth.

Tens of millions watched on television as Lovell and two other astronauts splashed back down into the Pacific Ocean, a moment which has become one of the most iconic in the history of space travel.

Lovell, who was also part of the Apollo 8 mission, was the first man to go to the Moon twice - but never actually landed.

Acting Nasa head Sean Duffy said Lovell had helped the US space programme to "forge a historic path".

——

Moon landing conspiracy theories - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

——

Either you are intentionally, willfully ignorant of facts and spout out nonsense Apollo 13 was a fraud, or you are correct it was not a fraud, it’s historical fact, or you are an evil bastard who knows the truth and pushes the lie.

What’s wrong with society is we are too open to “alternative facts”.

Call bullshit, bullshit.

It’s not really that hard about most facts, what’s lacking is the will to be right.

And, to offend the believers in bullshit might hurt advertising revenue, you know?

 

[Sig]

Historiography

History purely as data recorded is not history per se.

History is turning data into a story. Contextualizing. analyzing. Explaining. And even questioning causes and effects.

Two historians can write a book on the same topic. Both are different in approach or emphasis on something and that’s just the nature of storytelling.

I top of that:

There is a ton of historical stuff false factually.

Absolutely.
WWII history written by post war Americans was way different than written by Nazi sympathizers, or Japanese.
This can be said about almost anything.
Truly bias accounts of anything are extremely hard to find...if they exist.
Im a fan of the American West through the 19th century.
Ive read stories how Kit Carson was a true American hero. He helped the push West, and kept people safe.
And other stories where he was a savage Indian killer who raped and slaughtered from East to West, taking settlers money while doing it.
Im pretty sure both stories are true.
Its like the Robin Hood story.
Was he a good guy? or a bad guy?
Depends on who you ask.

 

[SBC]

It is a matter of un-controversial history that the US federal government has at least sometimes handed us false history. For instance, the claim that there was a second incident in the Gulf of Tonkin on August 4th, 1964 (besides the first, presumably true incident on August 2nd), escalating our involvement in Vietnam. Or for another instance, Nayirah al-Sabah, daughter of Kuwait's ambassador to the United States, being coached by the PR firm Hill & Knowlton to tell the baby incubatory story before Congress in 1990, leading to our involvement in the Gulf War.

How many other claims have also been fabricated for political reasons, I do not presume to know.

 

[HawkeyeLinus]

And yet, as a young boy I remember watching film of bodies being bulldozed into trenches while my Jesuit teachers looked on. The stories and atrocities we heard (and saw sometimes on FILM) back then….

What's your point? Now claiming it was inaccurate? What difference does it make your teachers were Jesuit?

 

[HawkeyeLinus]

It is a matter of un-controversial history that the US federal government has at least sometimes handed us false history. For instance, the claim that there was a second incident in the Gulf of Tonkin on August 4th, 1964 (besides the first, presumably true incident on August 2nd), escalating our involvement in Vietnam. Or for another instance, Nayirah al-Sabah, daughter of Kuwait's ambassador to the United States, being coached by the PR firm Hill & Knowlton to tell the baby incubatory story before Congress in 1990, leading to our involvement in the Gulf War.

How many other claims have also been fabricated for political reasons, I do not presume to know.

True for sure, but OP is talking about general historical events taught in whatever educational institutions he's referring to (and looks like apparently in Canada). I do remember learning about the Gulf of Tonkin in junior high (who knew) but to the credit of my history teacher we put on our own version of the Calley trial not all that long after the real event.

 

[Richmond B. Funkenhouser]

You can tell that people get real uncomfortable when faced with the fact that accepted history is often fiction.

It's weird... Almost like they already know but they have sworn an oath to themselves to ignore it.

There are a couple people in my everyday life like that. I love 'em though.

I mean... George Washington didn't cut down any cherry tree.

 

[HawkeyeLinus]

I mean... George Washington didn't cut down any cherry tree.

Next you'll be telling me he could actually tell a lie! If I find out Columbus didn't discover America I'm not leaving the house for a month.