Customer Reviews

Legends, Lies & Cherished Myths of American History

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(10)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

Television news reporter (now there's a credential) Shenkman attempts to debunk some widely-held but erroneous beliefs about American history from Columbus to the present day, covering topics such as sex, family, the so-called good old days, arts and quotations. It's a fine and admirable idea for a book. Unfortunately, this book does not deliver the idea's promise. Shenkman uses nearly no primary sources, relying on modern historians' research. This gives the result that in many instances, his "proof" of the falsity of one claim is simply another author's claim. Shenkman also has an odd idea of what constitutes American history, often resorting to 17th-century history to refute claims of what "American" life really is. He also quotes extensively but cites sources sproadically, often lumping a few paragraph's worth of sources together in one footnote. There are one or two nuggets of good stuff in here, like the origin of Paul Bunyan, or some of Harvard's history, but the lack of primary sources and generally non-scholarly approach make this book somewhat interesting at best.

This looked like a fascinating premise - debunk all the things we think we know. Unfortunately, the book did not live up to it's promise for me. The author tried to cover so much ground that nothing could be properly explored or explained. Just a lot of random factoids strung together.

I'm normally a fan of the factoid books, but I guess I just had mismatched expectations. I expected more from this book.

I was also vaguely troubled at a number of points during the book. The author used a lot of weasel words (might, could, may, etc.) when trying to convince us that the conventional understanding of a particular point is wrong. If you know better, say so. If it's a matter still in dispute, that's a little too academic for me to care about.

At other points, I found myself challenging his assumptions and sources. The one good thing I can say about this book is that for popular entertainment it was exceptionally well footnoted. (Not that I have the resources to look up all those books, but it was reassuring to think that I could.)

I doubt I'll be picking up any of his other books.

This was an interesting book, enjoyable and an easy read. It is a good jumping off point for futher in-depth investigation. I wouldn't take everything here at face value (and the author doesn't really expect you to). It has encouraged me to read opposing view points on subjects like the Alamo and the Rough Riders. It has helped remind me that there are sometimes several different points of view to one story. I would recommend it but remember it's just one more side of history.

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.

...but Richard Shenkman tries to give us the critical eye to spot it. This book, though dated and somewhat sketchy in places, at least has the gumption to stir up controversy and allow us to see that history is not the cut-and-dried, "objective" science we've been led to believe. The lists in this book are incomplete, they often contain unproven assertions, and sometimes are a little slipshod. However, no claim is made that these are the final facts, but rather that these are alternate, iconoclastic views that allow you to approach history, not as a sponge to absorb the broad assertions of which teachers are so fond, but as a critically thinking human being ready to separate the wheat from the chaff. Enjoy in good health and don't believe anything just because somebody told it to you!

This amusing book, by news reporter Richard Shenkman, puts to rest many American myths that we have all been taught growing up. Shenkman tackles explorers, the founding fathers, presidents, the family, education, holidays, art, and quotations, effectively disproving many of America's most cherished myths.

Shenckman shows that:

- George Washington never chopped down a cherry tree.

- Scientists didn't think the radiation from the first nuclear bomb would kill anyone.

- Abraham Lincoln was not poor.

- The U.S. was warned it would lose in Vietnam.

- Charles Lindbergh was not the first man to fly across the Atlantic nonstop.

A fun and entertaining read!

I agree with the reader from Atlanta. This book really IS superficial in a lot of ways, but I am not sure it was the author's intent to make this an in depth academic study in the first place. The contents certainly deliver on the title's promise. I used this book as a reader in a Japanese university English class precisely because it wasn't so daunting or detailed. The students loved it. One of them transferred elsewhere and went on to get an advanced degree in American history! I think Mr. Shenkman can take some credit for that.

This short book is along the same idea as "Lies my Teacher Told Me" etc, but seems a very superficial approach.

It is uneven. Parts are fascinating. The best section deals with myths that surround American Presidents. Some are fluff, but neat to learn. Lincoln hated to be called Abe! Some of the information is things that most everyone has heard before- Lincoln grew a beard in response to a letter from a little girl. Some of the information is dubious as well- Were the Adams' (JOhn & John Q) REALLY the Kennedy's of the nineteenthe century.

My personal favorite is the section in which the author dispels the "rags to riches" myth with which so many preisents are associated. It makes a great politcal story, but is rarely accurate. As the author points out Lincoln was not wealthy as a child, but also not poor by the standards of the day.

The sections on sex, family, and education really offer a facsinating view into American past. In some segments the author seems to really struggle to uncover a "lie" he explains that Emma Lazurus' famous poem is in fact innacurate because the immigrants were not truly tired (!)

This was an entertaining way to spend a morning, but by no means a scholarly look at American history

This book provides the real truth about many of the myths and legends that get passed around as history. Since dramatizations are always more popular that dull reality, this work is never ending. The author says that Americans know plenty of history, but little of it is true. No facts are cited, so page 11 serves as an ironic introduction. Seventeen chapters group historical topics. They make entertaining reading, and are informative. But are they all 100% correct? Note how many of his notes reference a sole source. Page 22 questions Eli Whitney's use of interchangeable parts from inspecting surviving examples. But after decades of wear wouldn't the original parts have been replaced? The Ford assembly line (p.25) came from Chicago slaughterhouses.

The "Founding Fathers" chapter teaches you what is censored from the schoolbooks. Page 31 tells of the Yazoo land swindle in Georgia, and the part played by the US Supreme Court after the fact. Neither Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, or Hamilton went to church regularly (p.35). "Presidents" says that Warren Harding was selected after many ballots. His Cabinet included some of the best minds in the country (p.50). If not the brightest, he made it up by often working from 8am to midnight until he died of a heart attack. Eisenhower's "fuzzy locutions" were just a way to give evasive answers (p.54). Reagan was a liberal Democrat from the 1930s to the early 1950s (pp.56-57). Most Presidents had a middle-class to rich background, except Andrew Johnson [and Bill Clinton?] (pp.58-59). Shenkman contradicts de Tocqueville on the "equality of conditions" in America. But de Tocqueville was right; lavish living was politically incorrect, and considered immoral. De Tocqueville also commented on America's fascination with money.

"Sex" suggest the only diference from 200 years ago is more publicity. The sermons against vice in the late 19th century may have been against the industrialized version (p.71). Big cities had guidebooks so "the reader may know how to avoid them" (p.72)! "The Family" notes the high rate of divorce in America started in the 1880s (p.80). Divorce seems to follow the economy (p.81). In past centuries early death was so common that single parent families were prevalent (p.82). "War" suggestss a censored reign of terror during the Revolution; a higher proportion of Loyalists fled than Royalists from Revolutionary France (p.84), where more died. Shenkman says the Mexican War was for territory, as if this was unusual (p.91)! Like most historical arguments, one man's truth is another man's myth. Page 103 says the Japanese emperor and the Supreme Council decided to end the war on June 20, 1945 weeks before the A-bombs were dropped. No one expected deaths from the radiation!

The popular image of "The Frontier" as a place of violence is due to Hollywood movies and dime novels, rather than historical fact (p.112). The Kansan cow towns which saw more violence were those with a large transient male population looking for fun. Davy Crocket's legend came from his political biographies (p.114). "Education" notes the failures in schooling goes way back; it is not a current phenomenon (p.13). College rebellions were common in the early 19th century (pp.135-6). "The Good Old Days" refer to the times where problems were forgotten and good memories retained (pp.159-160). Drug abuse was widespread in the late 19th century, not counting alcohol (p.164). "Folklore" says many famous figures believed to be mythical were based on real people, like Johnny Appleseed (p.166). The "Famous Quotes" chapter explains why some are "famous misquotes:. You can not fool all of the people all of the time after they read this book.

Ever wonder about the true story behind the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia? Have you ever visited Abraham Lincoln's Log Cabin, and wonder if it is authentic? Well, look no further. In this book, Richard Shenkman sheds some light on some of the "stories" behind U.S. History as we know it.

This book was, if anything, a really fascinating read. Shenkman did a lot of research in objecting to the time-held beliefs and traditions of some of the greatest pieces in American history. He mentions several historical things, and then counters them with his own detailed views and findings.

The writing is very easy to follow, and the short, yet detailed chapters make the book a fairly quick read. I can't say that the book was a total "eye-opening" experience, but it was rather interesting.

Is the tourist attraction of Betsy Ross' house really hers? Was Colombus' reason for the journey to the New World really made up by Washington Irving? Find out the answers to these and several questions like them in this entertaining book.