> >That's not what i meant; i meant the lies told specifically about > >Columbus's trip (he believed the world was round when everyone else > >thought it was flat, the Queen of Spain sold her jewels to finance the > >trip, there were three caravels, plus many other myths which i don't > >remember now and can't look up because that book was donated to > >charity by someone else). > > oh, like the 'Galileo was a martyr for science in the face of wikkid > Church oppression' line. I guess that's less annoying, then. No, but perhaps, when teachers talk about Columbus, they might reference his own journals where he talks about how these simple, kind people (the natives) would be easy to conquer, take back as slaves, etc. It's not just "lies", but also what they choose to leave out. It's a very basic and standard practice in history: Choose to say only that which shows your views in the best light. Heck, I can list half a dozen good things about Julius Caeser and what he did for the poor of Rome. But what do we learn about him? In the end, there's more than even two sides to a story, and if we're really supposed to learn from history, we need to hear more than one, or even two of them. Hence, reading books on history that give other views than the ones we hear in school, IMO, is a Good Thing<tm>. Chris "He is a lover of his country who rebukes and does not excuse its sins." - Frederick Douglass