# Think Tank > History >  I need an education in US History, from the ground up.

## Mini-Me

*Okay guys, here's some backstory to provide some perspective about just how bad my situation is:*
Back in high school, I really enjoyed my AP US History class, obtained a 5 on the exam, yada yada.  The problem is, I cannot really remember a damn thing about US history.  (I can't remember pretty much anything I ever learned in 17 years of K-college, actually.)  Off the top of my head, I cannot even name the years that wars started or ended, let alone recall important details.

Part of this may have to do with becoming stupider over the years due to lack of exercise.  Part of it is because I always gloss over details anyway without even attempting to memorize them for the long term.  I'll read an article and literally ignore names, dates, etc. without the slightest thought, because on some subconscious level, I know they're irrelevant to the bigger picture and I'll forget them anyway.  I come across relevant details and specifics, process them, analyze them with my strengths (which are not memorization but logic, insight, etc.), digest them to form conclusions about the bigger picture, and then absent-mindedly toss them away.  Over time, even some of the big picture fades, and I'll use context clues as a crutch.

The first time I remember having this problem was some years back, when I was transforming from a neocon into a liberal, and I was trying to explain to neocon family members WHY the Patriot Act is so bad, what specific provisions violate the Fourth Amendment, etc.  I realized that, while I was totally confident in my conclusion - since I had looked into the material so thoroughly - I couldn't readily recall anything off the top of my head to support my conclusion in argument.  It's like I've taken Einstein's quote, _"Never memorize what you can look up in books,"_ to the literal extreme.  For the record, I just Googled to get the exact wording, and - seriously, I'm not joking here - I already forgot it one sentence later.  Apparently, I didn't consider the wording important enough to matter, only the main idea.

In any case, forgetting *why* I've come to certain conclusions makes it kind of difficult to substantiate them to myself, let alone to others.  I'm supposedly an educated person, but I can't remember anything I was supposed to have learned.  I've meant to make this post for perhaps a year or more, but only tonight have I gathered the courage to openly flaunt my sketchy historical memory.

__________________________________________________  ______________
*Basically, I need to educate myself in US history again, literally from the ground up...and I want to do it right.  That means I want a comprehensive resource that's as unbiased as possible.  What books do you guys recommend, and why?*

Obviously, I have some mental hurdles and awful study habits to overcome, but I won't be able to do this if I can't find material worth straining to really absorb.  If I'm going to make the effort, I want material that's factual, scholarly, and actually worth the effort.  I need something as comprehensive as a high school or college textbook should be, but for obvious reasons, I'm not going to bother hanging on every word of actual biased high school or college textbooks.   Most historical accounts are unreasonably theme-based and selectively include/omit details based on the shape of history that corresponds with a political agenda.  I'm not looking for propaganda here, even of the libertarian kind...although it would still be immensely helpful if the author is in fact a libertarian, because I want a resource that honestly covers historical controversies instead of pretending they don't exist.  I don't want only the official account, and I don't want only the revisionist account (and in cases where the official account is a revisionist account itself, you know what I mean ).  For instance, my ideal history book [series] should include reasons why FDR probably knew about Pearl Harbor in advance, but it should not cherry-pick and omit counterarguments just to convince the reader to adopt that viewpoint.

Sorry for the length of this post.  I considered omitting the top section, but I wanted to stress just how much I need to relearn everything from the colonial era (or even beforehand) up to last week.   All of US history will obviously not fit into a single volume, and I don't care about Thomas Jefferson's favorite color, but I'm kind of hoping for a nice multi-volume collection from the same set of authors that covers all of the highlights and serves as a serious adult-level alternative to high school/college texts.  I guess I should provide bonus points for similar books on world history, as well.

Note:  By the way, I looked through the book list in the History section of this thread, but from the titles, I'm not sure if any really fit my needs.  This one looks somewhat promising, but I obviously can't limit myself to a history ending in 1828, either.

----------


## squarepusher

boats, pilgrims, nina maria, turkey, wigs, revolution, indians, civil war, slavery, fed, world wars, social programs, military occupation.

----------


## psi2941

Americans are the most blood thirsty savages on the planet. We LOVE WAR! we love killing women and children. We love to put a gun to a kid's head and blow his freaking head off for disagreeing with us and post it on youtube. Our country is also the NUMBER 1 (at least were good at something) at devolving new ways to kill people more effectively. (TANKS, MISSLES, AIRPLANES, BUNKER BUSTER.... YEP YOU GUESS IT ALL DEVELOPED BY THE US GOVERMENT or its contractors). There is no period in time in America where we were at peace for longer than 10 years. If one conflict ended we found a new kid to bully on. Since it became a burdensome  to find a new country to invade every 20 years we just decided to declare war on a military tactic that has been used for centuries. This tactic is guerilla warfare . When our nation was formed our found fathers used this tactic (militias) to do hit and run tactics on the British supply line. So when we do it's called "patriot" but when Osama does it to us its "terrorist." 

sigh, sorry i'm done with my ranting today  i'll add more to my ranting 2marrow

so bottom line: US history = we love war and killing people
If you want a country with a good history of peace check out Switzerland

----------


## IPSecure



----------


## Pennsylvania

Conceived In Liberty (Audio Format)

This is Murray Rothbard's multi-volume account of the history of the United States. Quite an invaluable resource to any serious student.

----------


## andrewh817

If you want some WWII history type in "Myths of World Wars" in Youtube.  Anything by Thomas Woods is great too.

----------


## TastyWheat

The Politically Incorrect Guides are great.  I think they're sometimes a little brief, but they do give a good overview.

I'm also a big fan of The Intellectual Devotional: American History.  It's not like a normal history book that goes in chronological order, but it has summaries of pretty much every major event in American history.

----------


## disorderlyvision

> boats, pilgrims, nina maria, turkey, wigs, revolution, indians, civil war, slavery, fed, world wars, social programs, military occupation.


So, it all started with boats...

We need a time machine...go back in time... destroy all boats... and wa lah, we're back in business.

So simple, a caveman could have thought of it

----------


## nayjevin

I found your whole description interesting - you must be a pretty self-reflective person to have that kind of insight.




> I come across relevant details and specifics, process them, analyze them with my strengths (which are not memorization but logic, insight, etc.), digest them to form conclusions about the bigger picture, and then absent-mindedly toss them away. Over time, even some of the big picture fades, and I'll use context clues as a crutch.


Good personal strategy, for efficiency -- though it can lead to irrational beliefs (giving an idea a good rating, then forgetting why, can lead to ignoring evidence to the contrary once details are lost).  It's a more natural thing that you don't read and learn with the idea in mind that you will later need to debate someone about it.  I don't know, but wonder whether it's worth it to flip that switch in the interest of being effective as an activist.  I suppose there's a good balance of completing the big picture and consciously cataloguing the persuasive factual details.

I am short on history myself, appreciate the thread.  




> Conceived In Liberty (Audio Format)
> 
> This is Murray Rothbard's multi-volume account of the history of the United States. Quite an invaluable resource to any serious student.


I'm particularly interested in audio books at the moment.  Is there a place to get 'Conceived in Liberty' in order, or in one file?

----------


## dgr

The Founding Fathers did not want us to be involved with the rest of the world , they wanted us to be like Switzerland neutral, the voted down a central bank, and put inplace a limited central goverment and strong states rights. One thing that is going to drive you guy's nuts is Madison said "Religion is the foundation of goverment" The only time Hamiliton got it right was when he said "A NATION STATE CANOT SURVIVE WITHOUT MANUFACTURING" from the beginning until Eseinhour they warned about the military industrial control of the goverment.

So don't get a book published after 1960. Next look at your situation and put into the context of the new proposed history curriculim, they want to start out at 1897, after most of l the  damage was done to the originial entent.

----------


## Pennsylvania

> I'm particularly interested in audio books at the moment.  Is there a place to get 'Conceived in Liberty' in order, or in one file?


Off the top of my head I can't think of one. Basically I just downloaded them all and let iTunes do the sorting for me.

----------


## TCE

> The Founding Fathers did not want us to be involved with the rest of the world , they wanted us to be like Switzerland neutral, the voted down a central bank, and put inplace a limited central goverment and strong states rights. One thing that is going to drive you guy's nuts is Madison said "Religion is the foundation of goverment" The only time Hamiliton got it right was when he said "A NATION STATE CANOT SURVIVE WITHOUT MANUFACTURING" from the beginning until Eseinhour they warned about the military industrial control of the goverment.
> 
> So don't get a book published after 1960. Next look at your situation and put into the context of the new proposed history curriculim, they want to start out at 1897, after most of l the  damage was done to the originial entent.


The Politically Incorrect Guides were way after 1960, and they're great. Although I agree they are brief, it's a great book to keep the interest of the average person. A lot of Rothbards works, if not all, were after 1960.

My history classes began with the Puritans. They just glorified everything Lincoln did and ignored a lot of important events.

----------


## Mini-Me

> 


Thanks.  I've considered getting this to read at some point, but the problem is that it's kind of a piecemeal approach though, and it's obviously written to push an agenda (even if it's largely ours).  Reading the reviews on Amazon, there are a lot of random liberals upset about Woods's one-sided approach.  This is to be expected, but it's still discouraging, considering I'm looking for the full picture and not just the points convenient to my own ideology.  What's worse though is that apparently the half-truths in this book are factually misleading.  For instance, a reviewer (who apparently hates Ron Paul and considers him fringe, but still) writes:



> There are NO notes to indicate the source of the spurious claims made by the author Thomas Woods. 
> Some statements are clearly wrong: Woods claims that before World War I the Germans made a "request" of Luxembourg that the German army be allowed to cross Luxembourg en route to France, and that Germany would reimburse Luxembourg for any damages, and that this request was "accepted ... without difficulty" by Luxembourg. In fact, Germany invaded Luxembourg. Luxembourg did not resist because its army contained just 400 soldiers. Luxembourg was occupied by Germany during World War I.


This book may be a nice complement to historical accounts with opposite biases - to fill in some of the opposite half-truths basically - but it's not the kind of comprehensive, objective account I'm looking for.  I just don't have enough of a grounding in US history to sort the full truths from the propaganda in this case. 

I guess I'm hoping for an account that people coming from other ideologies could grudgingly agree is an essentially honest, scholarly, and well-sourced factual history, even if its lack of typical statist bias upsets them sometimes.  I guess I could be asking for the impossible here, but...well, the difficulty of finding something suitable is precisely why I need help. 




> Conceived In Liberty (Audio Format)
> 
> This is Murray Rothbard's multi-volume account of the history of the United States. Quite an invaluable resource to any serious student.


This is something I'd really like to read at some point, since it seems like a fantastic account of the colonial and revolutionary era.  Considering Rothbard wrote it, it's interesting that I haven't heard anything bad about it, even from coffee shop pseudo-intellectuals who don't bother reading before reviewing. 

That said, this work focuses exclusively on early America, so I'm wanting to put it off until reading a broader account of US history up to the present.




> If you want some WWII history type in "Myths of World Wars" in Youtube.  Anything by Thomas Woods is great too.


Thanks, but I guess I'm trying to steer clear of Thomas Woods until I have more of a factual grounding.  He may have a wealth of knowledge, but he seems to write like something of a demagogue, so I'm not wanting to use his word as the fundamental basis of my historical knowledge.   Someone else pointed out to me in another thread that he's an apologist for the Catholic Church, and while that makes some sense considering both he and Lew Rockwell are Catholics, the extent of this really gives me pause.  I mean, he even wrote a book titled, _How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization_!  I have trouble understanding a radical libertarian who hates everything the state does, who then turns around and makes excuses for the Catholic Church, which was essentially one and the same with the state during some of the most tyrannical periods of history.  I hate thinking badly of the few guys on "our side," but something just doesn't sit right with me about Woods, and it makes me leery of his writing.

I'll keep Myths of World War II in mind, but that's also something I'm going to have to put off until I have more of a historical foundation to check it against.




> The Politically Incorrect Guides are great.  I think they're sometimes a little brief, but they do give a good overview.
> 
> I'm also a big fan of The Intellectual Devotional: American History.  It's not like a normal history book that goes in chronological order, but it has summaries of pretty much every major event in American history.


That's one I've never heard of.  Thanks!  At first glance, it seems like it's relatively unbiased, so it's probably great supplementary material.

*I'm picky though, so I'm still looking for the chronological holy grail...*




> I found your whole description interesting - you must be a pretty self-reflective person to have that kind of insight.


Taking showers and sitting on the toilet both give me a lot of spare time to think. 




> Good personal strategy, for efficiency -- though it can lead to irrational beliefs (giving an idea a good rating, then forgetting why, can lead to ignoring evidence to the contrary once details are lost).  It's a more natural thing that you don't read and learn with the idea in mind that you will later need to debate someone about it.  I don't know, but wonder whether it's worth it to flip that switch in the interest of being effective as an activist.  I suppose there's a good balance of completing the big picture and consciously cataloguing the persuasive factual details.
> 
> I am short on history myself, appreciate the thread.  
> 
> I'm particularly interested in audio books at the moment.  Is there a place to get 'Conceived in Liberty' in order, or in one file?


I definitely think it's possible to reach a healthy balance here, and people like Rothbard seem to have done so.  Knowing that is helpful, but it's still an effort to change the way your brain works, especially when you're afraid of compromising your current strengths!

----------


## TCE

Woods focuses on the areas where so much bias has been pushed on the other side, that bias needs to be presented from the opposite view.

Looking for a full, comprehensive history that is unbiased is impossible. Trust me, I have read tens of history books, and they all have a bias on one thing or the other. The best thing to do is read both biases, and figure out that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

----------


## NightOwl

*Thanks.  I've considered getting this to read at some point, but the problem is that it's kind of a piecemeal approach though, and it's obviously written to push an agenda (even if it's largely ours).  Reading the reviews on Amazon, there are a lot of random liberals upset about Woods's one-sided approach.  This is to be expected, but it's still discouraging, considering I'm looking for the full picture and not just the points convenient to my own ideology.  What's worse though is that apparently the half-truths in this book are factually misleading.*

Wait, so you've already decided the book must be full of half-truths, just because liberals don't like it?  And factually misleading because some other guy doesn't like it?  From a book I draw from my shelf almost at random: "It is seldom noted that neutral Luxemburg complied with the German request and there were no untoward incidents.  And, the neutral status of Belgium had previously been severely compromised by unneutral actions by the government in Brussels...."  I find this in Donald E. Schmidt, The Folly of War, 2005, p. 63.

*I guess I'm hoping for an account that people coming from other ideologies could grudgingly agree is an essentially honest, scholarly, and well-sourced factual history, even if its lack of typical statist bias upsets them sometimes.  I guess I could be asking for the impossible here, but...well, the difficulty of finding something suitable is precisely why I need help.* 

This is indeed unreasonable to expect.  Facts do not explain themselves.  Staring at lists of economic data does not yield an economic theory.  You need the theory first.  Presumably you would want to read people who use the correct theory.

*Someone else pointed out to me in another thread that he's an apologist for the Catholic Church, and while that makes some sense considering both he and Lew Rockwell are Catholics, the extent of this really gives me pause.  I mean, he even wrote a book titled, How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization!  I have trouble understanding a radical libertarian who hates everything the state does, who then turns around and makes excuses for the Catholic Church, which was essentially one and the same with the state during some of the most tyrannical periods of history.  I hate thinking badly of the few guys on "our side," but something just doesn't sit right with me about Woods, and it makes me leery of his writing.*

So you're going to judge a book you've never read, just because you're anti-Catholic?  It "makes excuses" for the Church?  Do you have any examples?  Do you see that this is exactly how the anti-Ron Paul people treat us?  They read one sentence or hear a book title and then think they know all about us.  Aren't we above that?

And I think you have a lot of history to read if you think the periods of history in which the Church was influential were "some of the most tyrannical periods of history."  Really?  The thirteenth century was "tyrannical"?

----------


## Mini-Me

> *Thanks.  I've considered getting this to read at some point, but the problem is that it's kind of a piecemeal approach though, and it's obviously written to push an agenda (even if it's largely ours).  Reading the reviews on Amazon, there are a lot of random liberals upset about Woods's one-sided approach.  This is to be expected, but it's still discouraging, considering I'm looking for the full picture and not just the points convenient to my own ideology.  What's worse though is that apparently the half-truths in this book are factually misleading.*
> 
> Wait, so you've already decided the book must be full of half-truths, just because liberals don't like it?  And factually misleading because some other guy doesn't like it?  From a book I draw from my shelf almost at random: "It is seldom noted that neutral Luxemburg complied with the German request and there were no untoward incidents.  And, the neutral status of Belgium had previously been severely compromised by unneutral actions by the government in Brussels...."  I find this in Donald E. Schmidt, The Folly of War, 2005, p. 63.


It's not so much that I've decided the book MUST be full of half-truths, as it is that I've decided it's too controversial to use as my fundamental starting point for relearning US history.  Sure, it's a good counterpoint to liberally biased accounts, but the point of this thread is that I'm searching for something more comprehensive and even-handed.  I'm not sure if I'll find something like that, but that's the point in asking.

In any case, the point the random liberal from Amazon made still stands.  Without further information, it would seem as though Germany made a peaceful request of Luxembourg, and Luxembourg voluntarily complied without threat or coercion...when really, a country with an army of [apparently] 400 had no chance in hell of saying "no."  In a history resource, I would greatly appreciate being privy to the full picture (or at least as much of it as an author is honestly capable of providing).




> *I guess I'm hoping for an account that people coming from other ideologies could grudgingly agree is an essentially honest, scholarly, and well-sourced factual history, even if its lack of typical statist bias upsets them sometimes.  I guess I could be asking for the impossible here, but...well, the difficulty of finding something suitable is precisely why I need help.* 
> 
> This is indeed unreasonable to expect.  Facts do not explain themselves.  Staring at lists of economic data does not yield an economic theory.  You need the theory first.  Presumably you would want to read people who use the correct theory.


This is true, but there are in fact other historical accounts that run into less controversy than _The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History._  For example, it seems that not a soul has uttered a word against _Conceived in Liberty_, despite the fact that Murray Rothbard of all people wrote it.  The author of _Freedom Just Around the Corner_ (also in the "Must Read Books" thread) has also run into little controversy, and some reviews have noted his deliberate attempt at objectivity.*  The only problem is, those two works both end in the early 1800's.

*What's interesting...and kind of disturbing maybe...is that the Council on Foreign Relations seems to like this book, yet it's also in the "Must Read Books" thread on RPF's.  Hrm.




> *Someone else pointed out to me in another thread that he's an apologist for the Catholic Church, and while that makes some sense considering both he and Lew Rockwell are Catholics, the extent of this really gives me pause.  I mean, he even wrote a book titled, How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization!  I have trouble understanding a radical libertarian who hates everything the state does, who then turns around and makes excuses for the Catholic Church, which was essentially one and the same with the state during some of the most tyrannical periods of history.  I hate thinking badly of the few guys on "our side," but something just doesn't sit right with me about Woods, and it makes me leery of his writing.*
> 
> So you're going to judge a book you've never read, just because you're anti-Catholic?  It "makes excuses" for the Church?  Do you have any examples?  Do you see that this is exactly how the anti-Ron Paul people treat us?  They read one sentence or hear a book title and then think they know all about us.  Aren't we above that?


If Bill Kristol wrote a new book lauding neoconservatism's role in liberating the world, should I refrain from judgment despite being decidedly anti-state?   Seriously though, I'm not here to trash-talk Thomas Woods or come to a decisive judgment about his works _a priori_, and I don't really see why you feel the need to pounce on me here.  It's just that I have an intense mistrust and disdain for ALL centralized power, and it makes me nervous when someone who appears to share this view turns around and makes a singular exception for just one such institution.  This doesn't mean I won't read anything by Woods; I actually own a copy of _Meltdown_.  All that I'm saying here is that I don't feel comfortable relying heavily on Woods's historical accounts until I have more historical knowledge to fortify my "bull$#@! filters" with, and I'm hoping there are better options available for getting to that point.




> And I think you have a lot of history to read if you think the periods of history in which the Church was influential were "some of the most tyrannical periods of history."  Really?  The thirteenth century was "tyrannical"?


The Spanish Inquisitions were not tyrannical?  I was born and raised Catholic (agnostic now), almost all of my family is Catholic, and I went to Catholic school, but from what I do [think I] know of the Catholic Church's history, it isn't pretty.

You're right that I have a lot of history to read, which is precisely why I'm so cautious.  Reading logical argumentation is one thing, because I can determine an author's credibility all by myself by looking for holes or contradictions.  Learning and absorbing historical facts is something entirely different, because I'm at the mercy of the author's honesty.  This will get easier once I've accumulated more knowledge, since I can check new facts against the knowledge base I've already built, but right now I don't have a strong enough historical reference point for that (which is what the rambling introspection in my initial post was about ).  Yes, the best approach is to read from multiple points of view, but the point of this thread is to find gems that are relatively trustworthy in their own right.

----------


## Omphfullas Zamboni

Hello,

In regards to your request for a US history education, from the ground up--have you heard of the audio lectures provided by The Teaching Company?

_The Teaching Company brings engaging professors into your home or car through courses on DVD, audio CD, and other formats. Since 1990, great teachers from the Ivy League, Stanford, Georgetown, and other leading colleges and universities have crafted over 200 courses for lifelong learners. We provide the adventure of learning, without the homework or exams._  

See their US history catalogue here:
http://www.teach12.com/storex/course...03&sn=American

Read the customer reviews.  Prices are expensive but you may be able to find cheaper offers on the same products, elsewhere. Additionally, I believe  the company cycles through its lectures and offers discounts--so the recording in which you are interested may be on sale, if not now, then at some point in the future.

I hope this helps.

Sincerely,
Omphfullas Zamboni

----------


## Isaac Bickerstaff

then

----------


## ronpaulhawaii

I posed this question elsewhere:




> Tom Woods - He wants "unbiased" sources; I'm not sure there is such a thing. I wrote my Politically Incorrect Guide to American History and 33 Questions books partly with someone like him in mind. If there's a particular subject or time period he wants to know about I can direct him to some good books, but there aren't many good survey treatments of the entire subject, I'm sorry to say.
> 6 hours ago · 
> 
> Tom Woods - I think Rothbard's Conceived in Liberty is in fact _not_ a good place to start. Four big volumes on just the colonial period is impractical for a beginner. It is also so full of detail as to overwhelm the casual reader. (And I love Rothbard, as you know.)

----------


## Omphfullas Zamboni

Mini-Me,

You may also be interested in The Modern Scholar, a family of lectures produced by Recorded Books:

http://www.recordedbooks.com/index.c...ar.course_list

Thank you for your time.

Regards, 
Omphfullas Zamboni

----------


## brandon

Thoroughly learning history is, of course, an impossible task. Just learning the full history of what happened yesterday would take several lifetimes. I would suggest starting your research by reading the Wikipedia articles for all of our wars and all of our presidents. From there perhaps you can find specific things that interest you, and narrow down the scope of this a little bit.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

I have to echo Conceived in Liberty. 

There really isn't any substantial deconstruction of US History through the lens of domestic and foreign policy throughout the entirity of our country. To do so would amount to a book with about 20,000 pages at least. 

I like How Capitalism Saved America by Di'Lorenzo also, but really.....As for Foreign Policy books by Chomsky, Chalmers, Blum, etc. are all good. (Killing Hope, etc.) Killing Hope goes from WWII to modern day and covers all Foreign interventions by America from the Military to the CIA. It is a great book. As for the War of Northern Aggression period. I like Di'Lorenzo's Lincoln work, but this area I am not as well versed on as others here (As a recommendation of historical books.). I do like this though to get an insite into the soldiers perspective:

http://www.soldierstudies.org/

----------


## Mini-Me

> I posed this question elsewhere:


That's kind of what I feared, but at least I know I'm not missing some great options outright.  In that case, if there's no particularly trustworthy survey treatment, I guess I'll have to take the piecemeal approach.  (By the way, I'm not sure how much of this thread you showed to Woods, but I hope my wariness didn't offend him personally.)

Thanks to everyone for all the suggestions, and keep them coming!  Maybe this can turn into a go-to thread for basic history education.

----------


## Pennsylvania

> Tom Woods - I think Rothbard's Conceived in Liberty is in fact _not_ a good place to start. Four big volumes on just the colonial period is impractical for a beginner. It is also so full of detail as to overwhelm the casual reader. (And I love Rothbard, as you know.)


Probably a good point. Well at least you know about it now MM.

----------


## ronpaulhawaii

> That's kind of what I feared, but at least I know I'm not missing some great options outright.  In that case, if there's no particularly trustworthy survey treatment, I guess I'll have to take the piecemeal approach.  (By the way, I'm not sure how much of this thread you showed to Woods, *but I hope my wariness didn't offend him personally*.)


Don't worry about Woods... He has a pretty thick skin, appreciates skepticism, and has been lurking here forever... 




> Thanks to everyone for all the suggestions, and keep them coming!  *Maybe this can turn into a go-to thread for basic history education.*


That is one of the reasons I took an interest...

----------


## Reason

I often wish I could absorb all knowledge.

----------


## nayjevin

> Thanks to everyone for all the suggestions, and keep them coming!


Memoirs and biographies of retired former government and military might provide for accurate insight into the various motivations of historical figures.

I'm not sure where to find them but I hope someone is building a library for post-apocalyptic study 




> ]I often wish I could absorb all knowledge.


Read 'Chuck Norris' by Chuck Norris.

----------


## BuddyRey

I find myself in almost exactly the same position as the OP.  I always loved history in school, but looking back, I didn't really _absorb_ anything.  I remember my history teacher's tangential conversations and fun side-observations far more accurately than the actual state curriculum.  I still remember, for instance, how "hookers" got their name from a licentious Union general in the War Between the States, who traveled with prostitutes frequently.  But I _don't_ remember why shots were fired at Fort Sumter.  I came away with a bunch of little details, but a quite vague and fuzzy "big picture."

I think many, if not all of us, have been scarred in various ways by the sorry state of American pedagogy, and it's a sad realization to face when I wonder what I might have accomplished or how much better educated I might have been by now had there been a truly free market in education.

----------


## ruthie

A great place to start would be with the Founding Fathers.  Read David McCullough's John Adams biography to start.  That will get you interested in bios of Jefferson, Washington, Ben Franklin.  McCullough is a brilliant writer.  Read his book 1776.  Stay in the same time period for the summer or something.  Ben Franklin's Autobiography is lovely; anytime you can read any autobiography, do.    Also read the actual writings, letters of the above and others of their time.   You will be learning lots of history of that time period and it will move you into new areas.   Dive in somewhere.  It is like tossing a pebble into a pond.  Follow the ripples that naturally form.  History is a treasure trove, the never ending story.

----------


## Omphfullas Zamboni

Mini-Me,

Did you ever settle on which resources you intend to study?

Regards,
Omphfullas Zamboni

----------


## Mini-Me

> Mini-Me,
> 
> Did you ever settle on which resources you intend to study?
> 
> Regards,
> Omphfullas Zamboni


Not yet.   I'm still mulling things over, but I've been busy enough lately that my indecision hasn't really cost me anything.

----------


## Sentinelrv

I'm in the same position as you, only having a fuzzy memory of history class. Recently I took an interest in attempting to learn something, but the result wasn't that great. For example, I was never into politics at all until I discovered Ron Paul, so when I was suddenly bombarded with these new concepts like liberalism, conservatism, left/right wing, etc... I tried going to Wikipedia to learn what those concepts meant. I was immediately frustrated beyond belief, because just the descriptions of these concepts contained hundreds of words or concepts that I didn't understand. I'd click on these other words to figure out what they meant before continuing on with reading the first definition, but then the new definition contained hundreds of words in its description also that I didn't understand. What makes it even worse is that many of these Wikipedia pages are very lengthy. It's like a giant interconnected web of information. In order to understand one thing, I need to understand something else, and in order to understand that I need to know something else and on and on. I read enough to get a general idea of some definitions, but didn't understand a lot of what I read. I guess the best way to go about it would be to read as many interconnecting articles as I can, and then after I have a general idea of it all, go back and read it all over again using the new general knowledge I've already obtained and use it to pull more details and specifics out.

----------


## Cowlesy

Does Anyone have Arnold Toynbee's unabridged "A Study of History" volumes?

I've been trying to find a complete set for a while and never have any luck.

----------


## RforRevolution

Off topic: There should be a book trading sub forum here. Most of us read the same books and it would save everyone a bunch of money. I know I have a ton of stuff I'd lend out or trade for something different.

----------


## Mini-Me

> Does Anyone have Arnold Toynbee's unabridged "A Study of History" volumes?
> 
> I've been trying to find a complete set for a while and never have any luck.


Nope...I just did a search for him though, and it seems pretty fascinating.  I can see why you're interested in it.  I looked in a few of the usual places on line, but I haven't been able to find a full set of the unabridged volumes in physical or electronic form.

If you're interested in building your collection piecemeal though, I've found the following volumes for sale online:
Volume I ($29.00 + $3.95)
Volume II ($29.00 + $3.95)
Volume III ($26.00 + $3.95)
--- (Volume IV is missing)
Volume V ($29.00 + $3.95)
--- (Volume VI is missing)
Volumes VII, VIII, IX, and X together ($275.00)
Volume XI ($176.80...ouch)
--- (Volume XII is missing)

That will get you 8/12 of them for just over $400, or 9/12 for a little over $575.  I'm not sure if that's helpful or not, but...

----------


## Cowlesy

> Nope...I just did a search for him though, and it seems pretty fascinating.  I can see why you're interested in it.  I looked in a few of the usual places on line, but I haven't been able to find a full set of the unabridged volumes in physical or electronic form.
> 
> If you're interested in building your collection piecemeal though, I've found the following volumes for sale online:
> Volume I ($29.00 + $3.95)
> Volume II ($29.00 + $3.95)
> Volume III ($26.00 + $3.95)
> --- (Volume IV is missing)
> Volume V ($29.00 + $3.95)
> --- (Volume VI is missing)
> ...


Thanks!!  I'll check out those links today.  At some point, I'm going to hit-up the rare book stores around the city and see if they have anything.

----------


## Travlyr

http://labvirus.wordpress.com/2010/0...stace-mullins/


Murder By Injection
The World Order
The Secret Of The Federal Reserve

----------


## sb10

If you want to expand your reach to world history, I highly recommend Richard Maybury's books.

Early Warning Report

----------


## LibertyEagle

Basic History of the United States  by Clarence Carson

8 volumes

http://www.exodusbooks.com/category.aspx?id=5391

----------


## Mini-Me

> Basic History of the United States  by Clarence Carson
> 
> 8 volumes
> 
> http://www.exodusbooks.com/category.aspx?id=5391


Very interesting!  Thanks for letting me know about this one!  This might be the first strongly anti-statist comprehensive/survey treatment I've seen.   The Amazon reviews are pretty sharply divided, and critics seem to point out some genuine shortcomings (like rambling and ideological tangents), but the overall vibe I'm getting is pretty positive.  Congressman Larry MacDonald was going to be a partner in publishing this, and the publishing was impeded when he was killed...so his would-be involvement is another vote of confidence.  It seems "JBS-y" enough that I'll have to balance it with another perspective, but I think this would probably be a pretty valuable one to have.

I should ask, though:  Did you just find this one, or are you recommending it after reading it?  I ask because it seems like the most critical Amazon reviewer of multiple volumes, Michael Tozer, is actually pretty well-aligned with us politically...that doesn't bode too well when even someone who's largely an ally has issues with the slant.  On the other hand, he kind of seems off his rocker in some of his reviews and comments anyway, so I should probably take his opinion with a grain of salt.

----------


## thomj76

May I recommend taking notes...Writing down information is another way to create a "stimuli" moment or moments (depending on how much data one writes down).

Then write some more...

When a person can imprint information in more than one medium or use more than one sense, I have found that there is a better chance for it to stick.  Of course, repetition can breed discipline, so repeat as necessary, then repeat some more.

As the son of a US government teacher (who retired this last year), in some ways, I was raised in a school environment.  Our current education system is still in large part based upon Horace Mann's "Normal" schools that utilize post-napoleonic prussian seminary teaching methods.  

In a nutshell, it separates knowledge into specific subjects and fails in large part to show the relative nature of information.  Add to this the "linear" thought process that so many are taught to use, and one may understand that straightline cram & dumps that put the students mind into a form of gorge and puke.

My recommendation is to approach learning differently, and mix it up.  Get out the dictionary and do dictionary circles in it to find the definition of words within the definition of the word you are defining (If you followed that complex sentence, then congrats...you pass the quiz today)

Before you go to bed, use that time to reflect on what happened that day, or go over some of your thoughts as to process them again.

To summarize:

Write it down...
Down cram & puke
Dictionary Circles
Mix it up
Reflection


Hope this helps...

----------


## Todd

> The Politically Incorrect Guides are great.  I think they're sometimes a little brief, but they do give a good overview.
> 
> I'm also a big fan of The Intellectual Devotional: American History.  It's not like a normal history book that goes in chronological order, but it has summaries of pretty much every major event in American history.


They also give some references to more thorough books you should read.



One note from what the OP wrote.
 There is no unbiased sources.  You have to discern where the writer is coming from and choose accordingly.

----------


## jdmyprez_deo_vindice

Come into chat some night... I am there just about every night and I am always up for historical discussion and I can help you fill in some of the gaps you might have.

----------


## lucius

my two cents only--k?

Scots life of napoleon
Versailles vs the Peace
the Patton papers volume 1 & 2
Phillip dru administrator
Secret destiny of America
Albert pikes morals and dogma
The plot to seize the white house
the 1953 congressional reece committee
moorer commission on the USS Liberty
Treason and The NWO Gurudas
Dark Alliance gary webb
Hope and Destiny first edition only 














> *Okay guys, here's some backstory to provide some perspective about just how bad my situation is:*
> Back in high school, I really enjoyed my AP US History class, obtained a 5 on the exam, yada yada.  The problem is, I cannot really remember a damn thing about US history.  (I can't remember pretty much anything I ever learned in 17 years of K-college, actually.)  Off the top of my head, I cannot even name the years that wars started or ended, let alone recall important details.
> 
> Part of this may have to do with becoming stupider over the years due to lack of exercise.  Part of it is because I always gloss over details anyway without even attempting to memorize them for the long term.  I'll read an article and literally ignore names, dates, etc. without the slightest thought, because on some subconscious level, I know they're irrelevant to the bigger picture and I'll forget them anyway.  I come across relevant details and specifics, process them, analyze them with my strengths (which are not memorization but logic, insight, etc.), digest them to form conclusions about the bigger picture, and then absent-mindedly toss them away.  Over time, even some of the big picture fades, and I'll use context clues as a crutch.
> 
> The first time I remember having this problem was some years back, when I was transforming from a neocon into a liberal, and I was trying to explain to neocon family members WHY the Patriot Act is so bad, what specific provisions violate the Fourth Amendment, etc.  I realized that, while I was totally confident in my conclusion - since I had looked into the material so thoroughly - I couldn't readily recall anything off the top of my head to support my conclusion in argument.  It's like I've taken Einstein's quote, _"Never memorize what you can look up in books,"_ to the literal extreme.  For the record, I just Googled to get the exact wording, and - seriously, I'm not joking here - I already forgot it one sentence later.  Apparently, I didn't consider the wording important enough to matter, only the main idea.
> 
> In any case, forgetting *why* I've come to certain conclusions makes it kind of difficult to substantiate them to myself, let alone to others.  I'm supposedly an educated person, but I can't remember anything I was supposed to have learned.  I've meant to make this post for perhaps a year or more, but only tonight have I gathered the courage to openly flaunt my sketchy historical memory.
> 
> ...

----------


## John F Kennedy III

I feel like I could have written the first half of the OP. I often have a terrible time remembering specific details after awhile.

----------


## opal

years ago.. and I mean in the 70's - my go to book just for dates of things was the NYS regents review book for American History.  I even used it in college history at LSU.  Not sure how biased it was because I was basically unmotivated and just squeeking by at the time.

----------


## presence

Why don't you just get an AP US History study guide and work through it again?

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_no...ap+study+guide


I find the only way to really come to terms with the "original intent" of historic documents like the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is to read them again and again like scripture.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

Why not start with Tom Woods Liberty Classroom?







Here's the Constitutional History from Liberty Classroom
https://www.youtube.com/embed/videos...dao&vq=highres

----------


## VIDEODROME

Maybe some people would do better arguing in a more philosophical way based on sources like Bastiat.  That doesn't really require remembering dates and names, but reasoning through the process of the market and government.  

Of course, there will be a concern doing this because a history scholar may try to debunk you.  What makes this worse is you don't even know if they person is accurate.  They could be question you while their own information is inaccurate.  

If that happens, you can decided to just shift gears, listen to their side, and say you'll lookup what they talked about.  That doesn't feel like winning a debate, but you don't feel silly either.  I've done this with a Liberal who thanked me for having Intellectual Honesty when I explained I basically don't know all the minor details.  

Or go ahead and probe the history buffs information by asking questions based on your political philosophies or throw what you know of Bastiat off-hand at what they're saying.  Don't let them get away with a reference they might not even know thoroughly.  

One last thing I'll add is I'm not sure if most people really are up to remembering and arguing history and politics on the spot.  This is what shows like Watters World feed on by talking to people in swim suits on the beach on college spring break when history and politics is the furthest thing from their minds.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Why not start with Tom Woods Liberty Classroom?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the Constitutional History from Liberty Classroom
> https://www.youtube.com/embed/videos...dao&vq=highres


This thread is from 2010.

I agree, though... First thing I thought of when I read the title. I'm going to end up taking his courses, actually. Ron Paul's too. I listened to one of Tom Woods' lectures on the matter and it was about what I would expect. An accurate telling of history without a talking down to the student. Most teachers would do well to adopt some of his teaching techniques.

----------


## presence

> This thread is from 2010.


Yes but the OP is wearing a link to the thread in his signature line currently.

----------

