Yeah but MrMan, just because something is revisionist history doesn't mean it's false. What about all the evidence above? You can't just ignore it. Also we all know that the victors write history and a lot of our history doesn't make sense and is falsified and a lot of data doesn't fit into it. Reality may not be as solid and logical as you think. The reason revisionist history exists is because the official narrative doesn't make sense. Didn't you get that? That Christian woman above, Shelly, made that point in all her videos above. Didn't you see any of them? Why can't you at least admit partial truth here rather than dismiss it all whole cloth 100 percent?MrMan wrote: ↑January 21st, 2024, 6:35 am@Winston
My grandmother had stories passed down in the family from her grandparents. My dad knew his grandfather and we know who his parents were, and theirs. We can find the patralineal line going back to the 1500s. I can go to graves going back past the orphan train times.
You are listening to revisionist history. During the industrial revolution, grain was cheap, making it hard for English farmers to compete. Theoretical free traded makes nations wealthier, so as the 1800s progressed and the corn laws were repealed, English farmers had to compete with the cheap grain from the glut if farmers with large plots of land in the midwest.
Couples has sex without modern birth control and had lots of kids. Doctors hadn't learned to wash their hands after touching cadacers and infected wounds before delivering babies, so women would die in childbirth. One parent gone. If dad died in his 70 an hour a week dangerous factory job, the kids were orphaned. Lindon gad workhorses and child pickpockets on the streets.
In the late 1800s, thousands of orphans were sent on 'orphan trails' by charities trying to place street kids in New York. Some of them had families too poor to take care of them. They adopted them out to families that wanted them--some were farmers toward the west who had huge farms
Tartaria was used to refer to Mongol lands for centuries. Mongol rather than Tartar probably became the preferred ethnic designation along the way. But Europeans with fuzzy information used the term for those under what had been the Mongol Empire, sometimes including China, for centuries.
If there was no evidence for revisionist history, then the books and videos above wouldn't exist. Did you think about that? What you gave above is the official narrative but there is a lot that doesn't fit into it. Didn't you get that? The truth is not 100 percent on one side or the other, because both positions have problems.