Legends, Lies, and Cherished Myths of American History 
asked by tubi on November 13, 2006 7:35 PM
The truth and nothing but the truth--Richard Shenkman sheds light on America's most believed legends:
The story of Columbus discovered that the world was round was invented by Washington Irving.
The pilgrims never lived in log cabins.
In Concord, Massachusetts, a third of all babies born in the twenty years before the Revolution were conceived out of wedlock.
Washington may have never told a lie, but he loved to drink and dance, and he fell in love with his best friend's wife.
Independence wasn't declared on July 4 (and the Liberty Bell was so little regarded that Philadelphia tried to sell it for scrap metal but nobody wanted it).
After World War II, the U.S. Government concluded that Japan would have surrendered within months, even if we had not bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Reviews
0%
0%
Your sixth grader might find it revealing, but nobody with any knowledge of history will learn much from this disconnected, purposeless collection of factoids. Shenkman acts like an annoying twelve-year old who's memorized 50 state capitals and wants you to listen as he recites them -- and thereby proves how smart he is.
Many of the facts he "reveals" here were things most people would learn from a comptent high-school or college American History class, or else are too irrelevant to be included even there. e.g. pointing out that Paul Revere had two companions, or that Molly Pitcher was not the only woman to fight in the Revolution.
Yes, it's true that most people aren't aware that John Paul Jones later served as a mercenary to Catherine the Great ... but what's the point? Are they supposed to know? Does not knowing reflect some sort of failing in their education? Shenkman certainly implies as much.
But even more annoying is his habit of attacking myths that nobody really believes. He refers to the "firmly held belief that premarital sex is a twentieth-century phenomenon." Firmly held by whom? Shenkman wants to pretend that there are people out there who think that there was no fornication pre-1900, so that he can show how wrong they are (and by contast, how smart and urbane he is). But of course nobody actually thinks this; what they actually think is that it was >less common< in the past than it is now ... which his statistics confirm. Now it probably is true that many people misunderstand or exagerrate how much less common ... but that's a comparatively subtle distinction, and Shenkman doesn't do those.
To pick another, he alludes to the (putatively common) "belief that Presidents were freqently born poor." Excuse me? I highly doubt anyone out there actually under the misapprehension that the majority of Presidents were raised from poverty. People believe that it is >possible for a poor person to become Head of State, and that that possibility is more real in the US than in other countries.
It might be interesting to do a comparative study with, say British PMs or Soviet Politburo members, to see what percentage of them came from comparatively wealthy backgrounds. Alas, that sort of thing is beyond Shenkman. His brilliant idea is to list all the presidents and spin their life stories to make them sound bourgeois: the orphaned Hoover was "brought up by his maternal uncle, the head of a local academy;" Nixon's father owned a gas station; Eisenhower's mother went to college. Best of all is his pointing out that while Lincoln was poor, he was "not as dirt poor as his neighbors."
My guess is that Shnekman fancies himself another Howard Zinn, fearlessly deconstructing the bourgeois myths of America. He isn't. Zinn uses facts to make points; he constructs arguments. Some of those facts are slanted, some points are debatable and some of arguments weak, but it is at least the discourse of an educated adult. Shenkman's is not.
Many of the facts he "reveals" here were things most people would learn from a comptent high-school or college American History class, or else are too irrelevant to be included even there. e.g. pointing out that Paul Revere had two companions, or that Molly Pitcher was not the only woman to fight in the Revolution.
Yes, it's true that most people aren't aware that John Paul Jones later served as a mercenary to Catherine the Great ... but what's the point? Are they supposed to know? Does not knowing reflect some sort of failing in their education? Shenkman certainly implies as much.
But even more annoying is his habit of attacking myths that nobody really believes. He refers to the "firmly held belief that premarital sex is a twentieth-century phenomenon." Firmly held by whom? Shenkman wants to pretend that there are people out there who think that there was no fornication pre-1900, so that he can show how wrong they are (and by contast, how smart and urbane he is). But of course nobody actually thinks this; what they actually think is that it was >less common< in the past than it is now ... which his statistics confirm. Now it probably is true that many people misunderstand or exagerrate how much less common ... but that's a comparatively subtle distinction, and Shenkman doesn't do those.
To pick another, he alludes to the (putatively common) "belief that Presidents were freqently born poor." Excuse me? I highly doubt anyone out there actually under the misapprehension that the majority of Presidents were raised from poverty. People believe that it is >possible for a poor person to become Head of State, and that that possibility is more real in the US than in other countries.
It might be interesting to do a comparative study with, say British PMs or Soviet Politburo members, to see what percentage of them came from comparatively wealthy backgrounds. Alas, that sort of thing is beyond Shenkman. His brilliant idea is to list all the presidents and spin their life stories to make them sound bourgeois: the orphaned Hoover was "brought up by his maternal uncle, the head of a local academy;" Nixon's father owned a gas station; Eisenhower's mother went to college. Best of all is his pointing out that while Lincoln was poor, he was "not as dirt poor as his neighbors."
My guess is that Shnekman fancies himself another Howard Zinn, fearlessly deconstructing the bourgeois myths of America. He isn't. Zinn uses facts to make points; he constructs arguments. Some of those facts are slanted, some points are debatable and some of arguments weak, but it is at least the discourse of an educated adult. Shenkman's is not.
reviewed by megafan on November 17, 2006 1:11 AM
0%
0%
Legend, Lies & Cherished Myths of American history is a misleading title. Do not assume this book to among likes of James Lowen's publications. Some aspects of the book seem factual. However, many arguements he makes such as the American revolution was not revolutionary at all, are completly rediculous.
This is yet another book in this kind of genre based upon assumptions and poor research. Avoid it at all costs.
Brian DeDentro
(Rhode Island College)
This is yet another book in this kind of genre based upon assumptions and poor research. Avoid it at all costs.
Brian DeDentro
(Rhode Island College)
reviewed by localhost on November 26, 2006 7:33 AM
0%
0%
Excellent source for my undergraduate students who are studying to become secondary social studies teachers.
thanks!!
Dave Kowalka
thanks!!
Dave Kowalka
reviewed by mags on November 26, 2006 9:41 PM