What is the most biased moment in your countries history? For

Eureka tax dodgers dindunuffin
Also depending on your politics, either white settlers dindunuffin or blackfellas lived in a perfect pacifistic green socialist utopia before the white man came

I think our involvement in the Napoleonic Wars is overstated

The civil war is way more biased dude.

Everyone thinks muh slavery nowadays 24/7 and nobody outside the south gets southern pride at all.

>>76253078
WW2 and the Civil war. For the last four decades they're being rebiased

File: 1489344101694asd.png (34KB, 948x595px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 948x595px

>>76253078
1917. when we beated bouth Germans and russians what makes us single country that thecnicaly beated russia + Germany alliance at once.With Estonian help of corse.

>>76254749
Good job :DDDD

>>76253078
>What is the most biased moment in your countries history?
League of Lezhends or BW

executing commies en masse in civil war

>there was a small but unlikely chance that Hitler could have used our heavy water to develop an atom bomb
>we sabotaged the heavy water factory
>"wtf we prevented a nuclear war and shit!"

>>76253078
Yes, the Revolution is definitely the most one sided, ahistorical bit of propaganda we are taught, which is weird because the truth still paints a good picture of our side, it just paints the British as less evil.

>>76254447
Thats because nobody except the south is proud of keeping people as property

>>76255010
You forgot blowing up ships and trains to prevent germans from leaving the country.

>>76253078

when we massacred the Paraguayans :D

>>76253078
1480 remove chinks
1812 remove croissant
1945 remove retard race and jap gooks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3472Q6kvg0
1918 objective: survive.

>>76255052
why would you not be proud of being better than others?

the weak fear the strong

>>76254447
The South isn't really painted as that bad of guys in my state, Virginia.

>>76255542
Well you are below the mason dixon line so it makes sense.

>>76255542
From my understanding it was the wealthy slave owners that specifically wanted slavery but the common man just wanted states rights yeah?

>>76254447
>>76255992
The reason for the war doesn't matter. If the South won there would be no US superpower, no US controlling wars around the world, Germany could have won WW1 even, or the US would become a battleground again. Not like the South could go against northern industry, navy and manpower, and the offensives failed, but why would you praise something that wanted to ruin your country?

WW1, brave Serbians defending against much larger armies, beating the uncompetent Austrians, but falling to a combined German and Austrian offensive. It's not very wrong, the Austrians wanted to annex us over the action of one diaspora.
>>76255163
How do you paint "we killed 90% of a countries male population" as being the good guys

File: 1492473906110.jpg (56KB, 583x435px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 583x435px

>>76256159
>implications
I'm just asking a question

>>76256159
Because at the time the south had an ethnic and cultural identity and they were trying to protect it from the intrusive city people in the north telling them what to do and how to live their lives. Now the whole nation is subverted and doesn't have shit for identity.

I don't like this american empire sort of thing. The only time I like it is when we fought and fight communism.

>>76255035
>it just paints the British as less evil.
Which is still weird, because nothing we did to you guys was evil at all.

>>76255163
Fucking this.

D. PEDRO II MATOU FOI POUCO.

>>76256366
NO TAXATION

WITHOUT REPRESENTATION

none I guess

brazillian history is kinda shitty, not too interesting and not too boring.

when I was in school I'd rather have a class about ancient greece or rome or the italian renassaince or about how nero was batshit crazy

File: IMG_3529.gif (3MB, 422x214px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 422x214px

>>76255542
Same with Texas. People care more about our revolution.

>>76256446
You had representation though, and in fact your voting right were greater than many people back here.

>>76256485
Vira-lata de bosta!

Kill a vira-lata right today!

Really it comes down to guys like Washington who fought in the French Indian War going slightly west and realizing they were sitting on a seemingly endless amount of real-estate and resources.
As soon as Washington got back he gathered a bunch of investors to fund a huge surveying expedition, and big surprise the Revolutionary War soon followed.
Fuck sharing with the rich assholes who run everything across the pond unless it's through trade is the underlying motive.

File: sunflower.jpg (70KB, 660x371px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 660x371px

>BGM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0RKpmjjpLQ&list=PLh8-V1tkQnlO4D79aqWI_i5wNBH7ICEc3&index=3

Probably that one time we lost Texas. Mexican history books are actually pretty decent, as far as avoiding bias goes. Natives were neither golden gods nor mindless savages. Spaniards were neither brutish murderapists nor benevolent harbingers of civilization. Juarez was as brilliant as he was corrupt. Porfirio did great things for our country, and was also an utter cunt,

All of those things I learned on history class, Texas tho? Murricans were a bunch of theving marauders, and Santana accidentally stumbled onto his authority. I've always found it weird how that was always the case, regardless of the book.

>>76253078
All of Transylvania's history because it's pretty much treated as a joke by everyone

>>76256870
It was also that he (not entirely wrongly IMO) felt aggrieved at not getting an Army commission after the war since he'd fought and even had two horses shot out from under him.

>>76256228

we did nuffin' wrong

>>76257655
Then start shoving pikes up peoples asses until they take you serious again

>>76257447
>Santana accidentally stumbled onto his authority
My books always said he was a dumbfuck dictator. They always fail to mention that the Mexicans of the time were dumb enough to vote for him time and time again.
>Murricans were a bunch of theving marauders
They were

March across the Belts.

>>76253078
The Dutch revolt against Spain
WWII and the resistance
Dutch colonial empire and VOC, including the 1945-1949 period

>>76258839
Of course. However, history books always fail to mention how a bunch of dirt farmers from a nothing state caused a war.

It's always focused (deservedly) on how Santana was a retard, and paints North americans as shitheaded brutes, instead of shitheaded oportunists.

don't know desu lads all english historians seem to hate their own country