| |
| Romans Arrived in Britain Around 62ad |  Stonehenge and the ancient Britons who constructed the large stone circles in Wiltshire England? Well, we know shortly before the Romans arrived in Britain around AD 62, Britons themselves freely traded serial crops with the European mainland. This suggests, contrary to popular myth that the Roman's didn't build the road system in the UK.
How do Historians think the early Britons transported their goods to the channel without any infrastructure to transport then it beggars belief that you can move large amounts of goods without a strategic road network to move them on. And this is only one of the glaringly obvious facts which blow the Roman legacy out of the water.
One of the big problems when we assume early Britain was the beneficiary, rather than the benefactor of the Roman conquest is, it fails abysmally to take account of what any conquering army does.
Conquering armies tend to erase all forms of history, heritage and culture of the country they've just invaded, and replace it with an acceptable version of their own. Does anyone seriously believe, that if Adolf Hitler and his evil cohorts had managed to invade us after the Battle of Britain in 1940, that the Fuhrer and his evil cohorts wouldn't have erased the British empire, called it a Germanic empire and claimed credit for everything around them. From science to technology an official German stamp would have been marked on everything, all records of past endeavours would have naturally been destroyed with big burning bonfires in the town square, as they did with Jewish literature in Germany, and the victors would have been grinned from ear-to-ear like Cheshire cats at their achievement. After all, it's the right of the victor to write history as they see fit.
Let's take an example of how this suppressive measure works in a realistic scenario. Look at the United States.
Throughout American history, the suppression of the native American Indian has pursued a relentless path towards total annihilation of anything that is considered to showa true representation of the many different indigenous tripes who were there long before the European settlers arrived: the Crow, Blackfoot, Apache, to name but a few who carved out a mutual co-existence with each other, in an often bleak and barren wilderness.
They got on fine until the whiteman came, then it was war, subjugation and the oppression of the masses. Tribes were ruthlessly rounded into reservations, early concentration camps, their lands and women raped, their children bayonetted and the Buffalo hunted to extinction, and when they complained, they were branded savages, left to starve and those who dare sought freedom and liberty from the constraints of the Dickensian conditions they found themselves in through no fault of their own, were ruthlessly hunted down by the cavalry and shot where they stood. A pretty sorry state of affairs.
But how was the tribal native American Indian painted by the newspapers, 'seen by the politician or explained away to the masses.
Tacumpta Sherman came up with the infamous, inexcusable phrase: "The only good Indian is a dead Indian."
And even though today the rest of us know exactly what went on: rape, murder, ethnic cleansing, the violation of the individual's human rights in the most profane way imaginable, it still doesn't stop the relentless pursuit of sanitizing US history via the world's greatest propaganda industry: Hollywood.
In motion pictures, from the early twenties to the present day, the suppressive regime of an all conquering people has maliciously sought to wash their hands of the truth, abandon their responsibility for past misdemeanour and conveniently forgets the atrocity committed in the name of greed and mankind's instinctive propensity to harvest everything in his path.
Back one page forward one page
|
|
| |
|
» 
