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.

Barack Obama and the Age of Blather

Barack Obama’s presidential run seems to be proving one thing and one thing only: how superficial and shallow our politics has become.
The only thing the media focuses upon is Barack Obama’s race and what it entails. The imbecilic sermons of his former pastor Reverend Wright and the reaction of working class whites to his candidacy. The reporters tell us they do that because Obama is the symbol of a new America or that our country is racially divided. That’s a load of bather and the simpletons in the media know it.
The media is focusing on the color of Obama’s skin and trying to incite a racist backlash against him because they don’t want to report on the real issues facing our country. No reporters are writing about the terrible condition of our transportation system, the highways filled with potholes, the bridges falling down, the obsolete railroad system, the airline system overwhelmed with gridlock, the lack of public transportation in most areas. No TV newshounds are questioning the high price of oil or global warming nor are they asking the presidential candidates about these things.
The only response to the energy and transportation crisis from the candidates has been John McCain’s suggestion for a gas tax holiday in the summer. McCain would stop collecting the federal gas tax, this would give motorists a momentary reprieve where the money to repair and maintain our highways will come from once the federal fuel tax is killed, McCain doesn’t say. Hillary has picked up on McCain’s moronic suggestion and added her own idiotic twist. She suggests a windfall profit tax on oil companies to make up for the lost fuel tax revenue, what Hillary doesn’t tell us is how the oil companies will pay the tax. They will raise gas prices to cover the revenues they loose to Hillary’s tax. The consumer at the pump won’t see any difference but Hillary might get a few votes. One thing of course is obvious, John McCain and Hillary Clinton have one thing in common, it’s been a long time since either of them has driven a few miles on our highways or taken a commercial airline flight.
Obama to his credit has denounced the gas tax stupidity but he hasn’t come forward with any constructive alternatives. Where is the talk of mass transit, high speed trains, railroad electrification and oil shale development that this great nation needs? Not coming from the brave visionary Barack Obama. Whether he’s saving these things for the general election or doesn’t know about them I don’t know and don’t care. They are the solution and he will he have to adopt them, just as earlier generations of politicians became ardent supporters of World War II and the Cold War because times demanded it. Of course Hillary or McCain would be forced to adopt these solutions once in office because the times cry out for them.
Obama is no visionary or champion of radical change, indeed his campaign is somewhere to the right of Herbert Hoover’s. Obama’s platform is basically do nothingism, do nothing to offend foreign nations, do nothing on the economic scene lest you upset the free market and do nothing to interfere in anybody’s private life lest it offend them. These are the rules by which a milk toast librarian lives not the principles by which a great nation is governed.
Now, I maybe wrong about Barack Obama he has shown himself to be a decent political operator and to have some common sense about economics. Other supposed political lightweights like Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan have shown themselves to be great leaders and visionaries. Supposed visionaries like Woodrow Wilson, Jimmy Carter and Neville Chamberlain have been exposed as fools and frauds by history.
Which is Obama? I don’t know, but I do know one thing he’s better than Hillary Clinton and John McCain. Which isn’t saying much but it is a reason to vote for the man.