Junk History
We’ve all heard of junk science that is science that has been completely distorted in order justify somebody’s beliefs, but there is a closely related phenomenon called junk history. That is history that has literally been turned into junk to reinforce somebody’s world view.
So how does one identify junk history and tell it from the real deal? The best way to do this is to take a close look at a popular piece of junk history “The Da Vinci Code.” The Da Vinci Code qualifies as junk history because it presents ideas that justify somebody’s belief system as history without presenting any credible evidence to back it up. Real history like real science demands evidence for example credible records verified by real historians. Da Vinci Code author Dan Brown presents the idea that Mary Magadelen was married to Jesus Christ and bore him children but provides no evidence. Instead he presents a conspiracy theory about a secret cabal of conservative Catholic male chauvinists that go to great lengths to hide the truth. What Brown is really doing is pandering to the prejudices of modern women who are uncomfortable with traditional Christianity.
Brown is cleverer than most junk historians in that he presents his theory as the back story for a rather boring and pedestrian thriller. He tries to avoid the scrutiny that usually demolishes most junk historians by hiding his work inside a thriller.
Junk history is to be distinguished from historical fiction in this way. Traditional historical fiction simply sets a story against a historical back drop, Junk history tries to teach history or rather somebody’s version of it. Junk historians often turn to fiction because fiction doesn’t need to meet the rigorous standards of scholarships. Dan Brown is a classic junk historian because he weaves pseudo scholarship into his stories, he claims that they are real. Steven Spielberg and George Lucas don’t claim that there was a real man named Indiana Jones who found the Ark of the Covenant, Dan Brown claims that the body of Mary Magdalen is hidden somewhere in Europe and that a secret organization called the priory of Zion exists to hide it.
So how does one tell historical fiction from junk history? Historical fiction tries to tell a story while junk history masquerades as history. Compare Indiana Jones and the Da Vinci Code, the Indiana Jones movies have a historical backdrop and are about as historically credible as The Da Vinci. The difference is that the creators of Indiana Jones George Lucas and Steven Spielberg are not trying to push a political agenda or teach history they are trying to tell a story. Dan Brown is trying to promote his religious beliefs as historical fact. In movie terms Oliver Stone’s JFK would also classify as Junk History because he tries to show a conspiracy theory that justifies his take on history as fact.
The main difference between junk history and real history is that junk history is tailored to suit somebody’s prejudices. For example Holocaust deniers justify their anti semtism and admiration for Nazism by claiming that nobody died at Auschwitz. Michelle Malkin justifies her super patriotism by claiming that the United States government did nothing wrong by locking Japanese Americans in concentration camps during World War II. Leftist admirers of Communism deliberately edit the well documented crimes of Lenin, Stalin and Mao out of history.
Junk history also uses some other tactics for example it appeals to emotion. American patriots who try to justify the use of the atomic bombs in 1945 by evoking the story of aging veterans who believe they avoided death in the invasion of Japan because of the bomb. Such a story is emotionally stirring but it lacks any real evidence instead it is a misuse of a legitimate historical technique namely oral history. Now, the above example is a particularly bad example of junk history because a legitimate case can be made for the use of the atomic bombs but it has to made from real historical example the behavior of the Japanese government prior to 1945 not the emotion charged memory of old men. Indeed by adopting the tactics of junk history the atomic bomb apologists hurt their case.
Another tactic of junk history is to draw a correlation between two unrelated historical events to make a point. For example comparing the crimes committed against Native Americans in the 19th Century with the Nazi attempt to exterminate Europe’s Jews. Yes, many terrible things were done to Native Americans in the 19th Century but there was no campaign of scientific extermination designed to destroy them as a race. Such a comparison has little historical validity but it stirs up emotion and makes Native Americans more sympathetic in modern eyes. A similar tactic would be to compare the conflict in present day Iraq to the Vietnam War, yes there are similarities but there are vast differences. Vietnam is dredged up because it raises ugly emotion driven memories for Americans not because it is a valid comparison.
Finally junk history casts allegations against real history, Dan Brown alleges that the Catholic Church covered up the true nature of Jesus’s teaching. Michelle Malkin alleges that politically correct elitists made false claims about the experiences of Japanese Americans in World War II. Holocaust deniers claim that the Jews manufactured the Holocaust to justify their crimes against the Palestinians. This is done because Junk History can only flourish when suspicion is cast upon real history. Junk historians have to resort to conspiracy theories because they have no evidence to justify their claims. Only by making us doubt the truth can they make us believe their lies.
So how does one detect junk history? By asking yourself a few simple questions? First, question any history that differs widely from the commonly accepted version. Second, question any history that comes from an unusual source such as a movie, a TV show or a novel. Third question any history that presents a conspiracy theory or attacks legitimate history. Fourth question any divergent version of history that justifies anybody’s prejudices or beliefs. For example Holocaust denial from Anti Semites or glowing portraits of Communism from leftist radicals. Fifth and finally question any history that comes from only one source. Finally use your brain and common sense, if it doesn’t seem right it probably isn’t.
So how does one identify junk history and tell it from the real deal? The best way to do this is to take a close look at a popular piece of junk history “The Da Vinci Code.” The Da Vinci Code qualifies as junk history because it presents ideas that justify somebody’s belief system as history without presenting any credible evidence to back it up. Real history like real science demands evidence for example credible records verified by real historians. Da Vinci Code author Dan Brown presents the idea that Mary Magadelen was married to Jesus Christ and bore him children but provides no evidence. Instead he presents a conspiracy theory about a secret cabal of conservative Catholic male chauvinists that go to great lengths to hide the truth. What Brown is really doing is pandering to the prejudices of modern women who are uncomfortable with traditional Christianity.
Brown is cleverer than most junk historians in that he presents his theory as the back story for a rather boring and pedestrian thriller. He tries to avoid the scrutiny that usually demolishes most junk historians by hiding his work inside a thriller.
Junk history is to be distinguished from historical fiction in this way. Traditional historical fiction simply sets a story against a historical back drop, Junk history tries to teach history or rather somebody’s version of it. Junk historians often turn to fiction because fiction doesn’t need to meet the rigorous standards of scholarships. Dan Brown is a classic junk historian because he weaves pseudo scholarship into his stories, he claims that they are real. Steven Spielberg and George Lucas don’t claim that there was a real man named Indiana Jones who found the Ark of the Covenant, Dan Brown claims that the body of Mary Magdalen is hidden somewhere in Europe and that a secret organization called the priory of Zion exists to hide it.
So how does one tell historical fiction from junk history? Historical fiction tries to tell a story while junk history masquerades as history. Compare Indiana Jones and the Da Vinci Code, the Indiana Jones movies have a historical backdrop and are about as historically credible as The Da Vinci. The difference is that the creators of Indiana Jones George Lucas and Steven Spielberg are not trying to push a political agenda or teach history they are trying to tell a story. Dan Brown is trying to promote his religious beliefs as historical fact. In movie terms Oliver Stone’s JFK would also classify as Junk History because he tries to show a conspiracy theory that justifies his take on history as fact.
The main difference between junk history and real history is that junk history is tailored to suit somebody’s prejudices. For example Holocaust deniers justify their anti semtism and admiration for Nazism by claiming that nobody died at Auschwitz. Michelle Malkin justifies her super patriotism by claiming that the United States government did nothing wrong by locking Japanese Americans in concentration camps during World War II. Leftist admirers of Communism deliberately edit the well documented crimes of Lenin, Stalin and Mao out of history.
Junk history also uses some other tactics for example it appeals to emotion. American patriots who try to justify the use of the atomic bombs in 1945 by evoking the story of aging veterans who believe they avoided death in the invasion of Japan because of the bomb. Such a story is emotionally stirring but it lacks any real evidence instead it is a misuse of a legitimate historical technique namely oral history. Now, the above example is a particularly bad example of junk history because a legitimate case can be made for the use of the atomic bombs but it has to made from real historical example the behavior of the Japanese government prior to 1945 not the emotion charged memory of old men. Indeed by adopting the tactics of junk history the atomic bomb apologists hurt their case.
Another tactic of junk history is to draw a correlation between two unrelated historical events to make a point. For example comparing the crimes committed against Native Americans in the 19th Century with the Nazi attempt to exterminate Europe’s Jews. Yes, many terrible things were done to Native Americans in the 19th Century but there was no campaign of scientific extermination designed to destroy them as a race. Such a comparison has little historical validity but it stirs up emotion and makes Native Americans more sympathetic in modern eyes. A similar tactic would be to compare the conflict in present day Iraq to the Vietnam War, yes there are similarities but there are vast differences. Vietnam is dredged up because it raises ugly emotion driven memories for Americans not because it is a valid comparison.
Finally junk history casts allegations against real history, Dan Brown alleges that the Catholic Church covered up the true nature of Jesus’s teaching. Michelle Malkin alleges that politically correct elitists made false claims about the experiences of Japanese Americans in World War II. Holocaust deniers claim that the Jews manufactured the Holocaust to justify their crimes against the Palestinians. This is done because Junk History can only flourish when suspicion is cast upon real history. Junk historians have to resort to conspiracy theories because they have no evidence to justify their claims. Only by making us doubt the truth can they make us believe their lies.
So how does one detect junk history? By asking yourself a few simple questions? First, question any history that differs widely from the commonly accepted version. Second, question any history that comes from an unusual source such as a movie, a TV show or a novel. Third question any history that presents a conspiracy theory or attacks legitimate history. Fourth question any divergent version of history that justifies anybody’s prejudices or beliefs. For example Holocaust denial from Anti Semites or glowing portraits of Communism from leftist radicals. Fifth and finally question any history that comes from only one source. Finally use your brain and common sense, if it doesn’t seem right it probably isn’t.
posted by great one at 4:57 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home