Did you think there was sufficient explanation in the book for WHY people are so tenaciously attached to false history? Or did Horwitz just treat it as a given that people cling to their myths — religious, historic and otherwise — even when they are demonstrated absurdities? Like it's just human nature to hold on to the first thing you were told?
I sometimes wished he would explore this phenomenon more. He touches on it when he makes comments to the effect that history is written by the winners, which in this case was white, Anglo Protestants, but I sometimes wished he would talk to a psychologist (vs. a local historian, say) to delve into this weird mental hurdle people have with perpetuating bad history.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I know you wrote this question before reading the last chapter, in which Horwitz explores this topic a little more. What did you think of the Plymouth guy's explanation that myths always trump truth? That people like a good story, with heroes and a happy ending, and it doesn't much matter whether it's true? This does make some sense to me. Take the rivalry between Plymouth and Jamestown -- I specifically remember learning that Jamestown was the first permanent settlement, but then a much bigger deal was made of Plymouth with no explanation of why. The teachers knew that Jamestown was first, but they still preferred to focus on the Pilgrims.
I do think it's an issue that could definitely use some more study. It makes me wonder, too, whether schoolkids now are being taught the same stuff I was taught. Are they still getting the line about Columbus being a genius/hero/rebel who was the only one who knew the earth was round?
Uh, yeah, I felt pretty stupid when I read that last chapter. Hehe
I thought the explanation of myth always trumping truth was right on, but it obviously stinks if you're on the losing end of the dominant myth, like so many minorities are, or like women have been throughout history — I mean, when the power of myth is used to bolster laws and cultural practices and values (like that crackpot racist Plecker, who was in charge of vital stats in Virginia).
People can embrace myths without buying into them, like the guy who proved that the First Thanksgiving was really in Florida but who nevertheless celebrated Thanksgiving with the traditional New England fixings (because he didn't like what the people in Florida ate). He was able to say, "I indulge in this tradition because I personally LIKE it, not because I believe it has a basis in history." I like that. It's honest. It's like how we can all go along with the charade of Santa Claus without believing it. It's just a fun falsehood. That's different from the people who cling to something blindly and humorlessly in the face of all evidence to the contrary. They don't seem able to admit that they believe X because it's simply more fun or convenient for them. They have to imbue it with the truth that "transcends" facts.
Great question about what kids are being taught today. It's scary to think about.
Yeah, great point. Myths can be fun. But it doesn't mean we have to be willfully ignorant. I liked that Grinch Who Stole Thanksgiving guy a lot.
Post a Comment