Top Five Things You Think You Know About History But Don't

Top Five Things You Think You Know About History But Don't

And Why They Annoy Me.....

 

It hurts my heart when I hear people say they don't like history because it's boring.  As my readers obviously know, history is funny, engaging, exciting and sexy, just like the women that write about it (humor me here).  My standard answer is typically that if you think history is boring, you weren't taught history right.   And some people really weren't taught history right. 

Most of you, in fact, weren't taught history right. 

So without further adieu, here's the top five things you think you know about history, but don't, complete with the reasons why I'm annoyed that the general public are still being taught these historical inaccuracies.   *Note:  The profanities increase as you get closer to number one. 

Enjoy.

 

#5:  The United States Has Won Every War We Have Fought

                Yeah this isn't a thing.  While the US is undoubtedly the global hegemon and the greatest military power currently on the planet, undefeated we are not.  Sorry, guys. 

                We *technically* didn't win The War of 1812, or Vietnam.  We also didn't *technically* lose them either: The War of 1812 ended in a stalemate and Vietnam, again *technically*, ended like most ill advised sexual encounters: in withdrawal.  In both cases, the US didn't achieve most of their goals, if any. 

                Vietnam and The War of 1812 are just the best known examples-- we haven't even gotten to the weird s**t yet.  We further *technically* didn't win Red Cloud's War, the Bay of Pigs Invasion as part of the Cold War, Korea, and the Utah War, just to name a few.  In the cases of the Utah War and Red Cloud's War, both ended in compromise.  Which is sweet.  Korea ended in a ceasefire where we, obviously, didn't win all of our aims (hence the seriously f*****g weird pictures of Kim Jong-un and his wife).  And the Bay of Pigs ended in, well, disaster, though one could argue that in that case we lost the battle but won the war. 

                So why are we taught this fallacy?  Well, patriotism plays a part in there somewhere.  Also, teachers don't tend to have nearly enough time to teach every caveat of every historical instance, a problem with our education system that I've named my occasional eye twitch after.  Further, most of the wars we didn't win tend to come with a catch:  we didn't *technically* win them.  So in the interest of brevity, simplicity and patriotism we are taught half truths.  No, we technically haven't really lost a war.  But there's a handful that we really didn't win either.  It's a blurry line, but a distinction worth making. 

 

#4:  Those Blood Thirsty Mayans!

                Yeah okay, so they totally ripped out the still beating heart of their religious sacrifices (usually human) and then ate them.  But that doesn't make them blood thirsty barbarians! 

                No, for real, it doesn't.  The pre-colonization Meso-American societies have often been cast as blood thirsty, barbaric, cannabalistic and savage.  But in reality they were complex, high functioning, highly stratified societies that sometimes sacrificed humans, and when these victims were sacrified, they were often willing participants from the community.  Through a mix of mild sedatives and psychological manipulation the Maya, most notably, would convince a chosen participant to go through the motions of an elaborate ritual culminating in their own sacrifice. 

                But I think the reason this falsehood annoys me so much is that it paints the early Meso-American cultures with a very broad brush.  People focus on the Maya because they're sexier, what with all the blood and calendars and what not.  But they forget about the Aztecs, Mexica, the Inca, the Olmecs, Nahua, Tikal, and others.  These were vastly complex cultures that had made serious advances in agriculture, astronomy, sciences, math (the concept of zero, most notably), art and other areas.  The Inca had the largest indigenous empire in the Americas before the colonizers came.  The Mexica practiced early imperialism during their Flowery Wars.  Each of these societies had huge flourishing urban centers, such as Tenochtitlan, Cusco, Tres Zapotes, Teotihuacan, on par with any city in Europe at the time. 

                So the blood sacrifice stuff is pretty cool, I'll give you that.  But pigeon holing these societies does a disservice to them, their history and to our own understanding of the world. 

 

#3:  Rosa Parks Launches The Civil Rights Movement By Randomly Not Giving Up Her Seat

                So Rosa Parks did help launch the Montgomery Bus Boycotts and The US Civil Rights movement through being the first brave soul to refuse to move to the back of the bus.  Sort of.  This was far from a random act, some actually argue that it was staged and based on the previous actions of a woman that has largely been lost to history:  Claudette Colvin. 

                Colvin was fifteen years old when she refused to give up her seat on the bus to a white man.  She was summarily dragged off of the bus and arrested.  Initially, Colvin's case was vetted to be the test case that the NAACP would try to use to overturn bus segregation.  But there were..... issues.....  The Colvin's were poor.  She was an unmarried pregnant teenager.  The father of the baby was married.... Whoops.  She was foulmouthed (I think that's why I lover her so).  It was determined that good god loving Americans just wouldn't be able to handle all of this.  So they waited.  For a more sympathetic, morally upstanding test case. 

                Enter Rosa Parks, nine months after Claudette's arrest.  Parks was a secretary for the NAACP that had been highly involved in the early Civil Rights movement for years.  She had been previously kicked off of that now infamous bus by the same bus driver.  While on her way home one night she was ordered to give up her seat on the bus for a white man.  And she refused.  Parks was a highly respected member of the community and this became the test case for the NAACP and the rest is, well, history. 

                Was the whole thing staged and premeditated?  The simple answer is that we don't know.  It's an entirely plausible theory.  However, would it matter?  Would it detract any from what Rosa Parks did for her cause?  Would it make her any less brave?  I don't think so.  Rosa Parks deserves her place in history, she did a seriously ballsy thing for a great cause, but Claudette Colvin deserves her place in history too.  And that has been denied her. 

#2:  The Civil War Was Fought Over States' Rights Not Slavery

                On the list of s**t I should never have to say is this:  The Civil War was absolutely about f*****g slavery.  Yes, states' rights did factor in, but it was predominantly the states' rights to regulate slavery. 

Let's talk for a bit about the Civil War:   

                19th century America, even before the Civil War and the secession of South Carolina, was basically two separate countries.  The north had been hit hard by the Industrial Revolution and focused primarily on manufacturing for most of its jobs and revenue, while the souththern states were almost exclusively agricultural.  This was not a new thing, climate had a lot to do with these differences and as such these differences can be seen in the early colonies (Massachusetts Bay vs the Chesapeake), and embodied in the early Constitution in articles such as the three-fifths compromise.  Agriculture was of course present in the north, but it was inherently different from large plantation farming as occurred in the south.  Thus, in general, there were less large slave holdings in the north than there were in the south.

                When abolition began to be the buzzword of the day, these long held differences became the source of deep conflict.  The north could easily live without their slaves, but the south was completely dependent on them for economic survival.  Among those that were most dependent on slave labor were the richest of the southern population-- the owners of the largest plantations.  These men also tended to be the most politically active-- they held most political offices, nominated most appointees to non-elected office and voted more regularly.  Holding office in 19th century America required money; the offices themselves typically didn't pay well, and most would have to take much time off from farming, etc to campaign or go to Washington to sit in Congress if they held national office, especially.  Thus, those holding political office were those that had the most to lose in the fight over slavery.  In the doctrine of states' rights they found a justification for their ire and a legal defense for secession.  But, the point at which these passions were enflamed were with the pecularly American institution of chattel slavery. 

                So.  Yes, states' rights was a thing.  But the people that were screaming about states' rights were those most dependent on slavery for their livelihood.  And the reason states' rights were so passionately invoked was in the context of slavery. 

Sigh.  S**t I shouldn't have to say. 

 

#1:  The United States Entered World War II To Keep The World Safe From Nazis

                The hardest part about this blog was determining whether this would be number one or number two on the list, because the slavery/Civil War thing is just as obnoxious as this one.  But this one tends to be more widely proliferated, so I promoted it. 

                Everyone brace yourselves for a second.  Go on.  Everyone good?  Okay... Here goes... The United States didn't give a flying f**k about Nazis during World War II.  At least not enough to enter the war on the Allied behalf when war broke out. 

Deep breath.  It's going to be okay.     

                The US entered World War II because Japan bombed the f**k out of Pearl Harbor.  Germany then declared war on us three days later.  We knew as early as 1936 about Hitler's final solution (The Holocaust, or Shoah), but we left Europeans to take care of it.  Which turned out to be a bad idea as Britain and France quickly got their asses handed to them.  We funneled as much money and materiel as we could to our allies, but we stopped short of actually joining the war on their behalf. 

Why?

                A lot of the reasoning had to do with World War I.  World War I, still called "The Great War" in Europe, changed the face of war as we knew it.  Men died in trenches, chemical and biological warfare were used on a large scale, and bodies (unable to be collected due to constant enemy fire) were destroyed, left to litter the battlefields and never return home.  Millions died.  MILLIONS.  We were scared shitless of another global conflict. 

                I know, I know.  It's not popular to admit that the US was scared about something, these colors don't run and all that.  But we were.  And it wasn't a weakness-- it was a completely rational response to scary s**t that we didn't want to repeat.  So we stayed out of World War II as long as we possibly could and focused on domestic politics, mainly fixing the economy in the wake of the Great Depression.  We had a lot of s**t on our plate, guys.  This plan ended on December 7, 1941-- the day that FDR pointedly called "the day that will live in infamy"-- when Japanese forces dropped bombs and flew planes into our ships stationed at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. 

                We could no longer remain "neutral" (I put that in quotes becasue we weren't really neutral in the conventional sense).  We declared war on Japan.  As Japan's ally, Germany declared war on us after that.  And the rest is pretty much history, for the sake of brevity here anyway. 

                So why am I so annoyed with this?  Well, by simplifying our reasons for going to war to "BECAUSE NAZIS!" we break down something rediculously complex into something so oversimplified that it's actually incorrect-- something that annoys me on principle.  But further than that, it doesn't leave room for the very real decision making process that was going on in America at the time.  We were a nation wounded.  We needed to focus on ourselves and find a way to survive the three decades of war and depression we had been dragged through, and our leaders made their decisions accordingly.  And that measured rationality, that deep thought and hard determination is something that Americans should be proud of.  

 

#5:  For more infor on the war of 1812 I suggest my blog!  http://theunemployedhistorian.blogspot.com/2014/08/b***h-slaps-and-bad-assery-war-of-1812.html

 

#4:  For more info on the pre colonial societies of Meso-America Burkholder and Johnson’s Colonial Latin American is a great resource, as is John Hemming’s The Conquest of The Incas

 

#3:  For more info on Claudette Colvin, you can find a good write up at the following:

               

               

                Also, great episodes of Drunk History and The Stuff You Missed in History podcast. 

 

#2:  Don’t believe me on the slavery thing?  Read a history book.  Like, for real, any history book.  This is one place where revisionist history gets it wrong. 

 

#1:  There’s a slew of online info on Nazis and WWII, the Japanese bombing and America’s entry into the war.  For some further book reading I suggest John Plowright’s The Causes, Course and Outcomes of World War Two