English, Otto (2021). Fake History: Ten Great Lies and How They Shaped the World. London. ISBN 978-1-78739-639-5. OCLC 1246540717. {{ cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher ( link) Whether it's virtuous leaders in just wars, martyrs sacrificing all for a cause, or innovators changing the world for the better, down the centuries supposedly great men and women have risen to become household names, saints and heroes. But just how deserving are they of their reputations? I'm sorry but what is this? I did history at uni, and I struggle to describe it, If one had to, you could define it as a self-absorbed, incoherent polemic. Part of the detritus thrown up by Brexit.

English, Otto (5 June 2021). "History's biggest lies - from Hitler's art career to royal family being German". Daily Mirror . Retrieved 27 December 2021. He has written extensively for Politico [3] and Byline Times, [4] and in 2021 published a non-fiction book, Fake History. [5] [6] Fake History looks at "the 10 biggest lies from history and... at the people who propagated them", [7] including the idea that the British royal family are German, or that Adolf Hitler was a failed artist. [8] Argument Honestly held opinions and provocative argument based on current events or our recent reports. It's all nonsense. I don't think that's a spoiler because I think that the word "Fake" in the title gives the game away a little. Our decisions, like Brexit, are not based on our national character but on our made up history. Russian Interference Byline Times leads the way in exposing the anti-democratic influence of the Kremlin over the affairs of other nationsBOOK REVIEW: Tearing down myths white men tell other white men". BusinessLIVE . Retrieved 27 December 2021. For the most part it was an enjoyable sequel, but I was disappointed to find that the chapter on Captain Scott was based so heavily on Roland Huntford's 'Scott and Amundsen', a book that is known to be incredibly biased, and in the case of some assertions untrue or without evidence (polar exploration history is my main career focus so I do know a bit about this). As in the Huntford, Scott is presented as an overly emotional, sentimental mess who wishes to climb the career ladder purely for his own egotistical reasons, we are not told that he was the sole financial support to his mother and sisters after his father and brother died, so promotion was essential to stop the family becoming destitute. I liked some of the chapters. The Churchill chapter and the Britain in WW2 chapter were interesting and made me think.

There is absolutely no reliable evidence that Scott's wife Kathleen had an affair with Nansen, I wasn't sure why this was included at all. Mivel a másik oldal hülyéi úgyis hülyék, ezért nyugodtan szálljunk bele a mítoszaikba páros lábbal. Küldjük el Churchillt a búsba, például. Meggyőzni ezzel se fogjuk őket, de legalább szórakozunk rajtuk. for history geeks like myself this book makes for a very interesting read as i learned a lot of interesting facts reading this book. for anyone who isn’t head over heals in love with history however this book doesn’t fully do what it says on the tin and you’d be forgiven for getting bored of the endless tangents.

History evolving though is what I thought was the point that the author could have expanded on more. Fake History can be exclusionary but learning history can be inclusive, hopeful and frankly very cool. Yes, the truth being uncovered will undoubtedly shatter many epic stories which were long embellished about people who have become famous. But the great missing link is getting people connected to the history that is most linked and is relatable to them. Not how the ruling classes lived and made the country, but how the rest of us have. I did find this book entertaining and informative. But I had two main problems with it. Firstly, I think the author is just a little too open in using the book to display his political opinions. Would I be saying this if I didn’t agree with all of them? Well, that is a speculative question. But I would say that I was more annoyed with it interrupting the flow of historical discussion. That said, despite the moments of personal bias, I felt it worked well overall - especially since the subject itself encourages readers to do their own thinking and their own research to counteract it. There is a lot of value in Fake History: Ten Great Lies and How They Shaped the World, and the chapters on family stories and the ultimate conclusion of the book were where it really shone. English cunningly sets the whole book up to showcase the bias that each of us holds. Is there really a difference between the giant statue of a golden dog unveiled in Turkmenistan, and Britain's own statue of Petra, the Blue Peter dog in Manchester? What we perceive as foolish and grandiose in the context of other countries somehow become accepted and normalised in our own. This was a lesson sorely needed, and one that English spends his entire book setting up.

Lejön az egészről, hogy a prioritás a szerző részéről saját indulata megélése volt. Aminek következtében szó sincs építkezésről. Pedig ha csak a fejezetcímeket nézzük, hihetnénk azt is, English egy ívet kíván létrehozni. Hisz azokban világosan meg van határozva egy állítás (pl.: "Régen az emberek azt hitték, a föld lapos"), amit a szerző bizonnyal cáfolni kíván, valamint ott az alcím is (pl. "A történelemhamisítás története"), ami mintha arra utalna, hogy egy általánosabb tematikus rendbe lesznek illesztve a fejtegetések. Aztán kiderül, hogy ilyen tematikus rend jószerével nem létezik, English csak csapong, össze-vissza hajigálja elénk mindazt a tudást, amit innen-onnan összecsipegetett, nem csoda, ha az ember egyes fejezetek végén őszintén elgondolkodik azon, hogy volt-e itt mondva valami érdemleges, vagy csak ventilált egy jóízűt az író saját magának. Thoroughy enjoyable way to find out how so much of life's preconceptions are mistaken and how cognitive dissonance and the Dunning-Kruger affect lead us astray.Nem mondom, hogy a fenti metódus olyasvalami, amit én sose követtem el, mert de. Ugyanakkor megiscsak jó lenne hinni, hogy ennél többre vagyunk hivatva. Mert végtére is nem az a gond, hogy mások mást gondolnak, mint mi - hisz az ember sokféle. Hanem hogy hajlandóak-e ezek mellett a gondolatok mellett úgy érvelni, hogy a másikat is embernek tekintik. Mégpedig olyan embernek, akiről feltételezik, hogy respektálható céljai és motivációi lehetnek. Jó, hát igaz, ami igaz, ez a fajta hozzáállás meglehetősen energiaigényes, néha meddő is**. De az semmiképpen sem jó módszer, ha a másik oldal leegyszerűsítő populizmusára válaszul mi meg megteremtjük annak tükörképét: a mi leegyszerűsítő populizmusunkat. English characterizes Churchill as a consistent supporter of wanton imperial violence. He can only sustain this claim by ignoring anything that contradicts it. Thus, English mentions that Churchill was involved in the one-sided British victory at Omdurman, but neglects to mention that Churchill criticized the British treatment of enemy wounded. He mentions that Churchill said that the colonization of Australia and America was not in itself a “wrong” but ignores that Churchill opposed imperial atrocities such as the brutal suppression of the Bambatha Rebellion, or punitive expeditions in Nigeria, or the Amritsar massacre. Incidentally Churchill wasn’t “defending the suppression of Aborigines” when he made that infamous remark – he was refuting an argument against Jewish emigration to Palestine. Had Churchill been listened to, more Jewish people would have survived the Holocaust. It is also fanciful to suggest that a majority of white Americans or Australians in the 1930s would have disagreed with Churchill’s view. The problem is that there is no easy way to fight this battle and, with the internet (especially via Facebook) the challenge is growing. Trump could never have become President nor Johnson PM without all the factors that Otto so rightly shows. Their lies are bought into by millions and continue to be as so many have been transfixed in the past. We are told that Kathleen Scott and Nansen were lovers, and that their affair was consumated in a Berlin hotel, there is absolutely no reliable evidence for this whatsoever, and it appears to have been invented by Huntford. They may have been friends, and Nansen may have had a crush on her, but hey, Kathleen was a vivacious and sociable lady, she had a lot of pals, it doesn't mean she was banging all of them, GOSH! Also I think this may have been one of the things Huntford had to pay the Scott family damages over, because it's not truuuueeeee 🤠 Szerintem nem érdemes azzal az előfeltételezéssel olvasni, hogy ez történelemtudomány. A történelemtudománynak (és minden tudománynak) ugyanis valahol feltétele, hogy az ember összegyűjti az adatokat, aztán levon belőlük valamilyen következtetést. Ha van is előzetes hipotézise, azért csak az adat az úr. Englishnek viszont van egy karcolhatatlan elképzelése arról, hogy a nacionalizmus hülyeség, a nemzetek története merő hazugsággyár, a Brit Birodalom pedig szégyellje össze magát. Amivel egy csomó ponton egyet is értek. Ebből kiindulva a szerző összegereblyézik mindenféle kis színest, elegyíti őket némi jópofáskodással*, egy kis csúsztatással, aztán az egész masszát áradó lendülettel az arcunkba tolja. Történelmi evidenciákat úgy ad elő, mintha azok egy általa felfedezett földrész partvidékei lennének, és úgy megy neki a nemzeti panteon legendáinak, mintha személyes sérelmeket akarna megtorolni rajtuk. Ez amúgy nem feltétlenül rossz - lehet ebből szórakoztató, sőt: intelligens kötetet építeni. Csak hát ez nem tudomány - sokkal inkább rokon a propagandával. De végtére is az is egy műfaj.