Pseudohistory

Japan was getting scrap metal and petroleum from the United States, and using it to make war on China, our ally. What amazes me is that it was not until the summer of 1941 that we embargoed Japan.

Japan's imperialist ambitions had nothing to do with the United States or its policies, other than that we were in their way in the Philippines. I recommend At Dawn We Slept, Gordon Prange et al, McGraw-Hill, 1981 for a thorough narrative of the entire Japanese operation against Hawaii.

But I do it with style.

You're pathetic. You need a hobby.

And you need to get your head out your arse.

We were feeding their war effort, meaning helping them invade.

Which was no way to help our Chinese ally.

I just thought I'd point out that Izzy has not answered this question.

By the way, that's a goddamned lie. No one here has more thoroughly listed the "crimes" of the United States than I have. The conservatives here have peed in their panties over that for years. You can't seem to post without employing one lie after another.

I answered it alright, you just didn't get the answer you wanted.

You have not addressed why you leave things out, your Pearl Harbor question was just you trying to change the subject.


Outright denial, multiple posting and now you're playing World of Warcraft.

No you did not answer it. I have not addressed "why (I) leave things out" for the simple reason that I don't do that. Sometimes I get things wrong--Walter has corrected me on more than one occasion. But all you are doing is spewing out hatefulness, you've been vicious to people here for as long as I have been aware of you.

I didn't ask any questions about Pearl Harbor. I was responding to a series of posts on that topic. You wouldn't know that, though, because you're so wrapped up in yourself. You are as childish, egocentric and narcissistic as President Plump. It's not all about you. Grow up, get a hobby, stop attacking people here. Of course, then, they'd have nothing to say to you, because you don't contribute anything relevant to the conversations here.

I've never played WW, and have no interest in it.

Your question was a diversionary tactic. You didn't get things wrong, you deliberately left things out.

Is this what you swear in court?

"I promise to tell the truth, the convenient truth, and ignore any facts that run counter to my narrative"

And as always your constant denial and refusal to own up to anything has become incredibly tedious.

Not so tedious that you can resist posting the same bullsh*t over and over again. EB was conversing with someone about the attack on Hawaii, and I responded to that. You jumped in with your typical, snide, insulting accusations. You haven't substantiated your accusations, and you haven't shown what you allege that I've left out.

Grow up, educate yourself, stop attacking people for your personal entertainment, get a hobby. While you're at it, get a clue. What a maroon . . .

Still tedious. I'll bow out and let you get the last word.

Regarding the topic of King Arthur that people were arguing about earlier, IMO we'll probably never know for sure whether or not there was an actual historical figure that grew into the legend.

I've seen speculation before about a military officer who was in charge of repelling an early Anglo-Saxon invasion a century before their successful invasion. I didn't notice anything necessarily implausible about the speculation, but there is certainly no evidence to establish that it is true either.

At this point it seems unlikely that, even if the person actually existed, we will ever have any evidence of it. And of course, if he never existed, then we will not be likely to find any evidence in that case either.

But it would be cool if evidence were somehow discovered that could tell us whatever the truth is.

Ambrosius Aurelianus is the most likely candidate. Although I don't know the credentialsoof the author or authors of the linked Wikipedia source, three are several things with which I do not agree. Ambrosius is mentioned in at leasst two of the four (or five) Gallic chronicles which are contemporary or nearly contemporary to the battle of Badon Hill (Mons Badonicus) mention Ambrosius, but not the battle. Gildas, then nearest actual Briton in time to mention the battle (he stated tat he was born in Britain in the same year as the battle, which gives a close approximation of the date of the battle), does not mention who commanded there. He praises Ambrosius, but his work, De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae (On the Ruin--or Corruption--of Britain) was, effectively a polemic, a sermon to the effect that the moral failings of the British "Princes" (i.e., Chieftains) was the cause of their ruin, as God punished them by allowing the pagan Saxons to defeat them. Bede, who wrote The Ecclesiastical History of the English People seems clearly to have followed Gildas, the only near contemporary source. Gildas never mentions any "King Arthur." Nennius wrote Historia Brittonum (History of the Britons), in the early 9th century according to an early 10th century prologue attached to the work.. Another document is attributed to Nennius, and "appendix" of the twelve great victories of "King Arthur." But such a document is not mentioned in the 10th century prologue which identifies Nennius. No copy of this alleged appendix has been found any earlier than the 14th century--at which point one is more than eight centuries beyond when the putative Arthur is supposed to have flourished, and five centuries beyond when Nennius wrote his history. I consider it to be very suspect. In the History of the British, Nennius does not mention any King Arthur, and the great victory at Badon Hill would have been only about three centuries earlier. "King Arthur" is not mentioned in any contemporary or near-contemporary source on the continent, although Ambrosius is, and the visit of Bishop Germans of Auxerre to Britain is prominently mentioned by Gildas and also mentioned in Gallic sources.

No Welsh source which mentions "King Arthur" exists any earlier than the 14th century. Chrétien de Troyes is the first person known positively to have written about "King Arthur" and he probably created the character Lancelot--that name is certainly not British. Finally, Arthur is not a British name, either. People who have studied enough to know that, but still want to believe in a "King Arthur" come up with all manner of tortured Brythonic sources for the name. The Irish raided into the island, both north and south of what we now call Wales. Artuir is an Irish name, and more than one of them appears in legends and chronicles by the Welsh.

From the time of Chrétien de Troyes (late 12th century), stories about "King Arthur" became increasingly popular. Marie de France, who was a contemporary of de Troyes, who wrote such stories for the "English" court of Henry II Plantagenet and his Queen consort, Eleanor of Aquitaine, never mentions any "King Arthur," nor any of the knights alleged to have coalesced around him. That is a very loud silence. But by the 13th and 14th centuries, the stories were extremely popular in France, and increasingly so in England. The monk in charge of a monastic scriptorium could make good money churning out copies of such stories, and the more spectacular, the better. Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote a history of the kings of Britain in the 12th century which is just silly with its extravagant claims. All the more reason thet the silence of Marie de France is so "loud." I strongly suspect he was writing for a continental audience. Monmouth as his Arthur conquering Iceland, Scotland, Ireland, and overrunning Gaul, and finally defeating the Roman imperial armies in the west.

All of which leads me to call bullsh*t on the entire Arthur story. Entertaining? Yes, if you like that sort of thing. Believable? Not a bit.

Wow...

In my initial post, I hoped only to find the term that applies to the widespread belief of a publicly-presented or “party-line” history that stands on its own authority, and usually goes unquestioned despite proof, evidence, documentation, etc. to the contrary. Sometimes these “histories” are so improbable, they border on the fantastic! But even when contrary evidence or proof in some form has been publicly available for decades, it goes ignored or the source vilified.

Often, people fed a popular history are intimidated or “steered away” from actual witnesses to historical events, or from other sources of “troublesome” information. Just as often, false witnesses are invented or instated by the convenient virtue of their age or location during the life of a historical person (if he lived recently enough) or at the time of the event. As long as no actual laws are broken, those who stand to gain the most are avid supporters of these false histories and “witnesses”. Even the families of historical personages might refuse to discuss anything that constitutes a change in the popular story, for various undisclosed reasons.

This was originally not about WW2 or such major historical events, but about local political figures or heroes, sports figures, other local icons, etc.

Perhaps “pseudo-history” is the only term that fits the bill...?

That is why I suggested that you sue that term, when someone is willfully lying for their own purposes.

What next? Gibson wasn't really William Wallace?!

The Arthur story is at least a long running show, but I'm glad the missus agreed to a visit in the Tintagel Old Post Office (a 14th-century stone house, built to the plan of a medieval manor house) instead of the various attractions for Arthurian enthusiasts there.

I bet that was fun. I have no problem with tourist attractions, but I prefer not have anyone piss down my leg and tell me it's raining.