7 Signs of Bogus History
Many people get suckered in by false accounts of history. It is often not their fault — they don’t have the background to pick up on the falsehoods, which are often rather obscure; and partly, it’s because our school texts don’t prepare children (and us as adults, later) to be alert to people trying to hoax us, for political reasons or for financial gains, or just for the hoax of it.
Following the sterling example of Robert Parks, I wrote two posts to try to help people identify bogus history when it plops onto their computer screens. This is important. Teachers should teach this; but if they don’t, students should learn it. Trying to ferret out the bogus from the genuine was a fun exercise for me in school and college, and it is a great way to learn the material better.
You can see both of these posts in their re-runs, here:
Here’s the shorthand list (please read the posts!):
The Seven Warning Signs of Bogus History
1. The author pitches the claim directly to the media or to organizations of non-historians, for pay.
2. The author says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work.
3. The sources that verify the new interpretation of history are obscure; if they involve a famous person, the sources are not those usually relied on by historians.
4. Evidence for the history is anecdotal.
5. The author says a belief is credible because it has endured for some time, or because many people believe it to be true.
6. The author has worked in isolation.
7. The author must propose a new interpretation of history to explain an observation; heroes become villains, or great conspiracies are often invoked.
December 22, 2007 at 5:11 am
With great respect I must still insist that people like Michael Parenti are completely correct when they say history is a human, social process, that a disproportionate influence is felt by elite power, and that, frankly, distortions of history come about from systemic influences, expressed by actual people, and thus, often, including conspiracy. This is true even if, as seems to me to be the case, 9/10ths of conspiracy theories are outright nonsense, and 9/10ths of the remainder are marginally less plausible than what are (and these somewhat vary nation to nation and culture to culture) canon history.
Scientists aren’t all that good as a body in judging the sociology of science (regardless of whether a postmodern absurdist like Steve Fuller says they are - even idiots and frauds can exploit correct points, just incorrectly). Historians, especially when specifics concern their own society, especially with a history that “matters,” aren’t the best judges of the sociology of history. It’s provable that the JFK assassination history was covered up. Obviously (even by the yardstick of whether promised investigations were made, hearings held, or sources made available) the first draft of 9/11 history has been whitewashed.
One thing that would really help people trying to not avoid this elephant in the room yet not also be taken in by buncombe is to simply admit the awful likelihood that coverups and whitewashes work. Was it Napoleon who said that it was not necessary to hide the truth forever, just long enough? I would say if you hide it long enough, it is hidden forever. Because even if it’s “found” it will be questionable due to distance in time and competing stories.
At any rate, sometimes you have to admit defeat, I think, and that you’ll never know with a high degree of confidence what has been obscured. I also think, on the other hand, that so much disinformation and elite obstruction actually exists sometimes that perhaps official history should be treated as partly legendary and digging for the roots and detection of patterns is warranted.
In short, often history is so distorted that telling bogus from real is a presumption. History is not bunk, but it’s often questionable.
December 22, 2007 at 7:49 am
History is often questionable, but should always be questioned, if only the better to learn it.
I haven’t found it yet, but I’ll bet we could find an event that carries all the seven signs of bogus history, but is truer than an arrow’s arc.
So, I’ll keep reading, digging, and writing a little.
Thanks, Marion.
January 1, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Of course, the problem is that “history” relies on TWO things: FACTS (actual observable occurances, like the World Trade Center towers falling down - indisputable) and CONTEXT (the why’s and who’s behind the events). Unfortunately, the contexts cannot always be determined with the kind of certainty (proof) that one expencts, demands even, in other fields, like science, law, medicine. Plus, the human perception of context is changable over time. In addition, the context ultimately attributed by historians, generally by CONSENSUS, may or may not corrolate with the “actual” motives of the participants in the historical events. These typically can only be inferred, and certainly not even “verified.” This, in my mind, is what makes humans so poor at assessing “recent” history. But, interesting, none the less.
March 5, 2008 at 10:13 pm
History is interesting enough. Determining the motivating factors and emotions behind that history is far more interesting and diverse.
March 11, 2008 at 1:18 pm
i afree with the first comment by Marion D. i think history are written by the winning party.. thats why i always say - party on!
March 18, 2008 at 2:00 pm
I say, that History is written by either the one who changes History for their Purposes and is written from their Own Perspective with Persuasive Writing and persuasive colored terms in order to cloud the Thinking and to persuade to emotional Movement of the feelings of the reader, intended or to inform honestly, and there are examples of both generally on every subject which excites the anger or moral base of the Readers of the Culture and time in which these Informative and Persuasive Writings take place.
The Media has always been the prime Mover, and I saw some very Influential Men mentioned in the comments and the post, such as Napoleon,
Many talk about the French Revolution and how the aristocracy was Corrupt and their Morals were deplorable, however, when you look at the Mass of the Aristocracy which was obliberated and Guillotined by the Perpetrators of this travesty of Justice, and you realize and read how the Media, the Newspapers and the Living plays which kept the Populace Angry over such a long period of time, simplt to prolong the bloodshed and retain power over the People to continue a reign of terror, you can see, how out of control the perpetrators were and power mad and even blood thirsty, they were, they were not normal people but had to be madmen and Criminal Element only, yet glorified by the Revolution and its leaders at that time and even today, are glorified by a corrupt press.
I notice that the press today, Television is even today, Corrupt in the Same manner and will Depose a man who is not really guilty of any more then some news men who obtained no real punishment for the same indiscretions except they did not pay 80 thousand dollars for the services of a Lady.
The problem is that when they deposed the Governor of New York, they installed a Black Man as Governor and in the same time frame in Florida and Michigan, you have the use of an allegedly Too Early Dated Election in these states to Stop the Progress of two other Candidates via Cancelling the Results of these elections then, Validating One of the Remaing Candidates as the Coronation Intendent of the Kennediies by Edward Kennedy of Massachussets, seemingly Coordinated by Rich New Yorkers Retired in Florida and Rich Unions in Michigan, to Control the Time the ELections were to be held and perhaps only to Stop the Possible Election of White Candidates running for the Democratic Nominaation, thereby Invalidating the Votes of Floridians and Installing the Nominee of Choice of Retired New Yorker Financiers and Michigan Auto Unions, and all this at the exclusion of Florida Citizen Voters from the Process. So history is seemingly Full of Similar Seeming Conspiracies but then there are ususally not so many in a short Time period as this, the Installation of a New York Lieutenant Governor who happens to be Black and the Seeming attempt to Control the Elections of Michigan and Florida to put a Black Candidate for President in the Lead in the Democratic Convention, what do you think, quite a Coincidence isn’t it, …
April 3, 2008 at 3:34 pm
OK, I admit to (a) having majored in history, and (b) really enjoying a book that manifests all seven of the signs, to varying degrees. It’s Gavin Menzies’ 1421 - the year China discovered the world (or -America, in the American version… why are we so effing provincial?).
I enjoyed the book, but experienced the nagging feeling throughout the read that he protested too much.
So a simplified version may be that all historical claims need to be run through a handy copy of Hamlet. That will net you (a) protestations of innocence are the signal-fires of guilty conscience - “Methinks he doth protest too much”; (b) kings are no better than commoners - “a king may go a progress through the guts of a beggar”; (c) the good guy is not always all that good - witness the fate of Ophelia, and some kind of corollary about Laertes; and (d) men’s attitudes toward women change glacially, if at all.
April 3, 2008 at 3:41 pm
So, you don’t grant much credence to the claims of 1421? Or you think it’s a book that shows all seven signs and is still accurate?
Alas, I’ve not found time to read it (still have 1491 on the to-read list, too).
April 28, 2008 at 12:26 pm
[...] Fillmore’s Bathtub posted a short essay — that you might want to read — discussing the signs of bogus history. A lot of those traits are shared by intelligent [...]