When I was young, I believed every fact that I was taught in the class room. The reasons that wars were fought, people that I was told discovered different lands, and why there were great tragedies or great victories. It wasn't until many years later that I began to find out that history is not necessarily the truth. This was quite a blow to me. Were my teachers purposely giving me wrong facts?

It turns out that history differs according to who is telling the "facts". If there was a war, history is usually accepted from the victors. They sort of have carte blanche in writing it. History can differ between nations and even between different time periods. If we could turn time back time and watch the start of a war between two or more nations, we might find out that the reasons that the war started were nothing like we are being taught. It might even turn out that the country we thought was the aggressor thought that it had to attack to survive. It might be that they were dependent on shipments of oil for example, and those shipments were being cut off.

Early Phone

In the U.S., most of us credit Alexander Graham Bell for inventing the telephone and we don't think any further about it. Not every nation in the world would agree with this. In Italy, it is believed that an entirely different person invented it. The Italians credit Antonio Meucci with the invention. They state that Meucci filed an intent to patent on December 28, 1871 but was never able to come up with the required $10.00. This was two years before Bell. Even the Congress of the United States passed a resolution recognizing him. Italy isn't the only country to think that one of theirs invented the telephone, Germany credits Philipp Reis and this was 15 years before Bell. Scientific papers have surfaced recently to prove this claim. Test results were found that showed the device worked.

It makes you wonder who else might have come up with a working phone that we don't even know about. Not only that, but wouldn't you think that the history books would be changed to reflect these developments, after all, isn't history supposed to be correct? A little thing like truth doesn't seem to stand in history's way. If a big, powerful, nation says something is one way and puts it in all it's text books, it sort of becomes history anyway.

Wright Brothers Flight

Another example of disagreements on historical facts concerns who was the first to fly a powered aircraft. Much of the world credits Wilbur and Orville Wright as the first to achieve powered flight in 1903. They were both very smart, not only at inventing, but they photographed their invention ever step of the way as to have proof that they actually accomplished flight. Because of this fact, they were to receive credit for the first flight. There was someone else who claims to have flown before this in front of about 50 people but had no photos to back it up, his name was Adler. He tested a steam powered plane, yes steam powered, with a four blade propeller in front of a small crowd on October 9, 1890, near Gretz-Armainvillers. It is said he flew it about 165 feet. Adler claimed he flew it again at the army base near Satory which is near Versailles in France in September of 1891 but this time was able to fly it about 300 feet at a height of about 8 inches. Adler never mentioned this until 1906. Samuel Langley actually launched a 30 pound, twin propeller steam plane and had, of all people, his friend, Alexander Graham Bell as a witness. The craft flew high, somewhere between 700 to 1,000 feet for a distance of 3,000 feet. The flight took place on May 6, 1896. He flew another plane in November of the same year and it flew over 4,200 feet. Both these planes were unmanned. There are others like Gustave Whitehead, of Bridgeport, Connecticut, who people claim flew a plane over a mile in 1901 and they state that they have evidence. The Russians claim that they were the first to make a powered flight. The field of history is littered with first flight claims.

Civil War Recruiting Poster

When you are in school, the teachers are quick to tell you that the American Civil War was fought over the issue of slavery. I believed this one for years when I was a kid. The truth is that freeing the slaves was only an after thought that came along later. It was in 1862 that Lincoln freed the slaves to get even with the south for continuing the war. The American Civil War was fought because southern states wanted certain rights that the Congress wouldn't give them. One of the things that really annoyed the south was that it was forced to sell it's cotton and other raw materials to the northern factories. Congress heavily favored the northern states at the expense of the southern ones at the time. This is a prime example of the winners of a war writing the history books to suit themselves at the expense of the truth. It does make the war seem more noble however.

Columbus

How come Columbus gets credit for discovering America? Everyone knows that prior to his even getting to the new world there had been Indians here. Asians had sailed here as did Norse expeditions. It is beginning to look like many ancient races may have come here. Bijarni Herjolfsson is said to have come here in 986 A.D.

When nations conquer other nations, they usually have a whole list of reasons why their occupation really helps the conquered people. When the British occupied India for so many years they claimed that they were bringing civilization to them along with organization and modern methods of cultivating their crops. This was not the way the Indians saw it. They felt that the British were draining the resources of their country and oppressing them. History is in the eye of the beholder. Two people can look at the same object and each observes it a little differently. The Indians became very unhappy with their occupation as would any country.

As I said, just because a fact is written in a history book, it isn't necessarily true. I bet if I could get one history text book from every nation on this earth and compare them, I would find that there is huge disagreement on many facts. Maybe when they print these things they should state other views on the subject too. Would it be more informative when you were reading a paragraph that said that Columbus is given credit for discovering but that others may have been here first and listed some of them? This would be true history.