Hullo, I'm... well, who cares, my name isn't important... my point is to ask WHY.

Has anyone here seen the Broadway performance, Hamilton? I think those that have might offer me some leeway.

If you haven't, can you imagine the founding fathers as people. Not as fact or actions in your history books, but people. People capable of slander, cruelty, love, pride, all the emotions we forget about when we read any history book

I'm asking why. I'm just bending myself into a job where I teach but am not ab
E to pose the question:why...

Why is the answer.

The things YOU forget when reading a history book are the things that make history interesting to ME.

I've heard Sir John A MacDonald was a drunk..he was a founding father wasn't he? imagine that..
Is there a play about the jerks back in the day?

I'm glad this is interesting. john A being a Drinker isn't too much of a surprise! Actually, the Jefferson lust is MORE SHOCKING... since J is a huge name in American history but hey... also the progenitor of the Republican Party... and enjoyed slave owning...

Anyone wanna prove me. Wrong? Dig some dig somthing. exonerating the muthaf*ckin' southern democratic republican!

Hamilton doesn't cover everyone, but they let loose what they can... and us does make ***** of many. And questions more.

This is why I'm interested...I learnt the facts, the dates. The events... but until now, I did not say: why? Well... I'm making good on my silence now. I a teacher now and an adult, I can ask. And I can teach.

My aunt's name is Lisa and we call her Aunt Beast lmao

I trained originally to be an Historian, or a history teacher, and it is still the most fascinating subject that I think everyone (especially in these times) really ought to take a great deal more seriously.

The fact is, that everyone (including those we most admire AND those we most wish to think ill of) throughout existence, was a more complete personality than many who wish to USE history, have found to be convenient.

That is, people tell you about the past most commonly, because they want you to do something else in the Present, other than what you are doing. So they may tell you that someone long ago was reeeeeeely smart, and said some wise-sounding thing, or did something that seems very important in retrospect, and therefore YOU really ought to do what THEY want you to do, right now. Or they may try to shock you, by explaining that someone who you were originally told to admire, also had "feet of clay" so to speak, in hopes that you would then ignore what good they also tried to do, out of resentment, if nothing else.

I heartily endorse BOTH discovering the human foibles of everyone famous who has gone before, but also pay careful attention to who is describing them to you, and what they hope to "persuade" you to do about it all, going forward.

After all, just because someone tells you something that is TRUE, doesn't mean that they are HONEST or that they are HONORABLE in their intentions.

I seem to recall a saying about lions writing history,,,,,,,


there is a tendency to simplify humans into either heroes or villains,

maybe recognizing their actual complexity is too much intellectual work,,,,

Why and how what?
You're too vague.


Why no one cares about your name?
Why your name isn't important?


Yes. But no matter what it's my imagination and not reality.
Reality is something immediate I react to internally without much control, and then with limited choice externally, with boundaries being more external.
Imagination is purely internal, something I can pick and choose to react to (and how I want to react to it) without boundaries except personal (even unrelated) experience I apply to myself.


Still not sure what consequence you are asking the precedent causes of.


Prove what wrong?
You mostly offer personal emotional experience and personal bias:
"isn't too much of a surprise!... MORE SHOCKING... enjoyed..."
How can anyone prove what you say are your emotional reactions as wrong.
How can anyone prove how someone "really" felt that has been dead for a very long time.


I can't prove he didn't have sex with his mother.
I can't prove anyone on this website didn't have sex with their mother.

You mentioned imagining people as people, beyond their "fact or actions in your history books, but people" and in doing that it's extremely relevant to look at the context of what influenced them as well as their morality and values as they conform to their own society, culture, and personal groups.

It's not for me to exonerate "the muthaf*ckin" in any way. That was for his peers to do. And they're all dead.

Death and time exonerates or absolves more effectively by influencing relevancy than I ever could.


Only in the sense there isn't that much of a payoff for doing the "intellectual work."
IMO most people "could," but why should they?
It's just as likely they recognize (on some level) the actual complexity and realize it's not worth recreating or focusing on because it doesn't or won't really affect their life in any meaningful way more so than applying that "intellectual work" to alternative foci.

Seems basic nerd/jock dilemma.
"Philistine! Don't you know the anterior starboard nacelle on the U.S.S. constellation has 2! outward opening 3ft x 4ft hatches which are tribble compatible? Is it too much intellectual work for you to realize that Roddenberry was a complex individual putting so much thought into creating the reality of his universe?!?!"
"Yeah, whatever nerd." Meanwhile the jock has to navigate their own complex system of maintaining social position, hierarchy relevancy, by focusing on athletic accomplishment, style, fashion, their emotional bonds within their peer groups, as well as behave according to the dictates of their primary social group led by parents, being mindful of growth and development away from them, and any dissonance between what everyone wants and expects to keep the status quo.
"Stupid jocks labeling people! They're intellectually lazy!"


There is a tendency to simplify relationships and seek out emotional cues based on group expectations.
Is something relevant, should they care, to what degree, positive, or negative, fight or flight, and what are the consequences, expectations, for going one way or the other.

I tried to find your "lions writing history" quote, and the best I can get is that it was along the lines of "until lions write history, the story will always glorify their hunters," or something close. It's a relative of another quote I've always rebelled against a bit, that "history is written by the victors." The main way both quotes have validity, is that whenever someone tells you what they say is the complete story of what happened, you should carefully study the storyteller's own life and motivations, and take that into account before classifying what they said as "just the facts, and all the facts."

I find two main reasons why it IS so common to simplify people into either heroes or villains, and I don't think laziness is the primary one, at least for most story tellers.

One, is that the story teller is lying for some kind of personal gain. Maybe they make the Americans into the Good Guys, and the others into the Bad Guys, because they want to encourage readers to be more blindly patriotic, or some such. Or they may do the reverse, because they want to undermine patriotism in order to get people to vote for change.

The other reason, is a little more subtle. Story tellers simplify everything into a sort of cartoon, because they are in a hurry to get the story told, and move on to something else. Or, they are trying to lay some initial background information into place, and they expect to come back and refine the first stories they told and add the nuances later. That's what tends to take place with a lot of childhood education. It's only really ACCIDENTALLY devious.

and in todays society

Ben Franklin 1 of the the greatest American of all would have been thrown

under the bus for sexual harassment and liable

to the victor go the spoils

one of those spoils is the wide spread distribution of the writing of the
history of the event

dont know why a discussion of political figures in history would be so
interesting ------- DOH! 2 U

Perhaps we are not ready to accept that the world is not run according to what is said but rather what is negotiated without our awareness or consent. The difference between what people say and want others to believe and hear, versus what they actually intend to do and act upon totally different yet serve to get one elected and re elected..

Why? Because we like you! M-O-U-S-E

If the OP is a teacher. I feel horribly bad for her students. Grammar, and spelling are important matters in trying to teach any subject.

know not that one but they got a supper review ...

some times I can think back and wonder how it was in that time ...
but they don't put every thing in history books ... as a matter of fact... sometimes not even the truth ... I know people who went to

some fine schools but turned out they did not find out about what our history books did not tell us ...till older ...and that if they where interested enough to find out ... or they just believe the books in schools ...


I have always like the fun facts cards... you can get your kids for certain ages... I have all the presidents up to Obama ... I will have to buy the new ones but doubt I will lmao

who are you ... the spelling police ... and just to let you know ...
some of our books that are given to students at young ages...
missed spell all kinds of BLa Bla Bla and do not get the sentences right or even tell the truth ... I am breaking your *alls
if you have any lol

I'm not the spelling police, just was pointing out that it would be a good thing to spell correctly if teaching.
As a matter of fact, I do have balls unlike you posting with a bubble and no picture.
Now take your middle finger, shove it up your a** and sit and spin.