Why is history so biased?

Question

I hear there were ancient batteries discovered in Baghdad, but it is said that they are not batteries by mainstream historians.


I have read of colossal heads with African features discovered in Mexico that predate the Aztecs and Mayans, yet it is said that there is no way that there were Africans in Mexico and South America.

I am tired of being lied to. I want to know why it is impossible that Africans traveled to South America and why it is impossible that people who lived in the region now known as Iraq could not possibly have invented batteries?

I can accept that attempting to accurately record historical events can be an arduous task but I cannot accept what I see as a deliberate campaign to defame and de-intellectualize certain groups of people.

In the case of the Baghdad battery they said they found traces of an acidic compound like vinegar. It is said this substance was “like” vinegar. That does not mean it was vinegar. So to dismiss this device as functionless because we have made duplicates using the materials we think they used is completely erroneous. We do not know what acidic compound they used. For all we know once this vinegar like substance is added to the vessel it will produce huge amounts of electricity.

Answer 1

History itself is unbiased. Those who intreprit it project their own biases onto it. In other words, the bias is in the historian, not in the events of history.

Answer 2

History is a mass of suppositions and inferences drawn from meager evidence unearthed and uprooted around the world. Historians do the best the can with their techincal and cultural basis.

It is a known fact that the current "Africans" migrated from the Indus valley as did the Aborigine of Austrailia. It has been fairly well established that some peoples left the Indus valley and migrated to China. It is feasible that they could have gone on to colonize tropical America.

The Baghdad battery has been duplicated and found to function as a battery but they also believe that it was only used in "magic".

Answer 3

EGO ,with capital letters stands inbetween the actual truth and its recorded version.Otherwise you wouldn't find Mesopotamians being branded as Barbarians while the truth is that when thes accusers were barbarians themselves Culture and civilisation flourished on the banks of Euphratis and the TIGRIS. The same holds good for all the tall claims of having civilized the ancient societies of the so called Dark Continent or of South or North America.

Answer 4

History is a perspective. You aren't being lied to, it's just that those who write the history books are telling it the way they see it.

Think about when you were a kid, and you and your brother had conflicting stories about who threw the ball in the house that broke Mom's favorite vase. Mom gets to listen to the "He did it!" "No, HE did it!" Mom will never truly know who did it, she can only choose who she wants to believe or punish you both. She wasn't there to see the truth.

It's the same with history, we can only speculate as to whether we are looking at batteries or building blocks or children's toys. We weren't there to see it ourselves.

And lastly, everyone knows that the Incans and Mayans were from Mars. They easily could have tried out Africa before deciding that South America was prettier.

Answer 5

You are 100% on target, the problem with archeology is they not only need artifacts but detailed instructions to be convinced ancient peoples were just as "smart" as they are today. Consider the Antikytheran device, it allows the precise navigation that people who dismiss trans-ocean navigation say was impossible for the ancients. in 1976 a speech pathologist named Dr. Barry Fell wrote "America B.C." citing alot more evidence that many peoples had crossed the Atlantic, so it's likely as much as 2 or 4 thousand years ago there were ocean going vessels of numerous cultures plying the earth. Cocaine in Egyptian mummies can only come from South America. the Bosinia pyramid and stone spheres match those of Central America. There are sites like "Mystery Hill" in New Hampshire, and Quechee Gorge in Vermont, and the mystery of the Mandan indian tribe that lends itself to Celtic exploration of the American Northeast long before the Vikings, which could explain the sudden burst of agriculture and refined weaponry/tool making found today about the BC/AD timeline, and their ancient beliefs have similarities that might not be accidental? Roman admiral Brutus smashed the Celtic fleet in 54 AD that the romans admitted were far better sea going vessels, but not for war. It will take a sunken Pheonician vessel at the "Bimini Road" or something like that to force admission of exploration/contact. Basically, the victor writes the history. That's why the Minoan and Celtic civilizartions were "savages", according to victorius Greeks or Romans. And Then there is the question of how residents of Pacific archipelagos got out on those islands, they didn't walk or swim all the way. And why does the 9,000 year old caucasian skeleton show up in Kenniwick, Washington? I think it's obvious that all groups migrated around the earth due to climate change, disease, extinction events like volcanoes, ice ages, meteorites, hunting, etc. but determination of who was where depends on the presence in recorded history. DNA sampling is helping unravel some of this but unless they improve sampling techniques on decayed sources it will never truly explain all of human history. I am hopeful that underwater archeology will find more wrecks and lost settlements preserved in ocean sediments, I think that is the only hope of forcing science to accept navigation is much older than believed. I understand the greeks used similar batteries, for electroplating at least but it seems likely they could have done other experiments, at least for the amusement of shocking somebody :P There are examples of ancient technology, like a pedometer/odometer, showing up centuries later in Da Vinci's drawings, so it seems likely he had access to records since lost? And there is European style stone foundations in the Quebec wilderness south of the St. Lawrence that no one knows the origins of. As long as people keep their eyes shut they won't learn. So it's up to people like you and me to keep looking and questioning, and encouraging others to do so.

Answer 6

History is biased upon the beliefs of those who are writing it. Look at all the different people writing. Goodness, it seems that even those who are writing the Bible can't get everything right-there are 2 accepted versions of that-a Catholic Bible with the Apocrypha and the Protestant Bible.
History is a recording of those who discover things. They write from their prospective and being human that creates a bias. If one believes that something-ie Mayans couldn't have possibly have gotten to Africa or vise versa they will write with their beliefs.

Answer 7

Narrow-minded humans just like to see things their way and do not want it known that someone else ousted them. The only way to truly understand world history is to study from various viewpoints - views of those involved and accounts from witnesses and/or critics.

Answer 8

History was edited by the powerful. If you look closely and pay attention you will see the truth

Answer 9

Because they don't want old conflicts being broughten up in everyday life. They still have the present to deal with, and the past isn't always so pretty in it's truth.

Answer 10

It is simply propaganda.