Customer Reviews

Legends , Lies & Cherished Myths of World History

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

 

 

All in all, it's a pleasant read. The problem is that Shenkman seems to get carried away with the sound of his own voice, forgetting to fill in little things like details, attributions, etc. And sometimes, his "debunking" is unnecessary.

For example, Shenkman spares great pains to tell us that works of fiction (Shakespeare, Hans Brinker, etc.) aren't true at all - they're fiction! (Perhaps in the sequal he can inform us that Harry Potter isn't a real person).

Although he admits his biases up front, this doesn't give him carte blanche to revel in them. Shenkman is unabashedly Ameri-centric, and his prejudice against other nations is sometimes appalling. For example, he denigrates the British for not being completely stoic during the Battle of Britain in WWII. His evidence? One person's diary shows that he (gasp) went to two luncheon parties during one week! Horrors! He denigrates heroes of France, England and India because, basically, they were human. God forbid!

The book isn't all bad. Shenkman (when he actually quotes his sources and doesn't prattle on about minutia) does a great service by asking us to examine our history instead of getting it spoon-fed to us. As such, this book makes a nice starting point for the re-exploration of history. If only he'd given us more to chew on, instead of a thin, sarcastic gruel.

As a professional historian I was appalled by this book. I have a pretty generous sense of humor, but Shenkman's weak attempts at debunking popular conceptions and his "breezy" wit were too much. He propogates just as much bad history as he purports to correct, oversimplifying such complex subjects as Alexander's conquests and the fall of Rome, and his section on Judaism could easily be called anti-Semitic. It should come as no surprise that he skips over relgions that it's not okay to ridicule--only Jews and Christians are the butt of jokes, here. As another reviewer said, Shenkman seems to like hearing himself talk--so true. His narrative style reminds of me those self-important people you hear dominating restaurant conversation so often.
If you really must have something historical to laugh at, check out The Lowbrow's Guide to History, which, at least, doesn't pretend to be telling the truth.

The author warns in the introduction that he is not to be trusted, and it is a good idea to heed his advice. Indeed, the book does identify some facts that need to be debunked, as do similarly themed books such as Myth Information by J. Allen Varasdi and Lies My Teacher Told Me by James W. Loewen. And Shenkman is an amusing writer with a reader-friendly style. But Shenkman doesn't deal primarily with specific factoids that are simply incorrect. He sprinkles historical facts into a highly subjective view of history. True, some subjective views may not fit the facts well, but Shenkman often settles for exploding an old hasty generalization by substituting a generalization of his own. Too often, he cites "no evidence" as permission to draw conclusions that themselves have no support. If you know something about history, this book is apt to frustrate you. If you don't know much history, this book is no place to start.

As he opened up the book with stating that there is no hard evidence that Achilles or Helen of Troy existed I winced a little. Apparently this guy cannot differentiate mythology from history. I tried to continue whilst rolling my eyes as he proudly announced that Cleopatra wasn't pretty. And finally I gave up on reading this book less than 50 pages into it as he goes on and on about how the Christians were solely responsible for thousands and thousands of deaths during the Crusades. *sigh* If you're going to rant about history make sure it's something worth writing about and that you're right. This one goes to the garbage can instead of the used book store.

Some people don't take this book in the way it was clearly written - with tongue planted firmly in cheek. The author obviously didn't mean for this to be a definitive account of all the events covered - that would have acquired volumes approaching a set of encyclopaedias!

What he does do, however, is cause you to pause, and think, about some of the things you might have believed for years based solely upon what some highly-dubious sources have passed off as legitimate history - such as Hollywood. There they;d have you believe that Sun Yat-sen and Chiang Kai-shek were paragons of virtue in their roles as great Western allies. Or how about those "authentic" Spanish Civil War battle scenes - many shot on the back lots of Hollywood and some even shot in a bathtub in New Jersey.

What he might have included, as examples of manipulative history, was Frank Capra's unjustifiably renowned "why we fight" video series which shows, among other gross inaccuracies, the "gallant" Russians, prior to the Nazi invasion, toiling away in their wheat fields in Socialist bliss. Because Capra compiled this DURING the war, no mention was made, of course, of the murderous Stalinist purges that had already sent millions of his own people to their deaths or lifetimes of slavery in he Gulags. The problem is, the series is STILL being sold as "historical" accounts of the era.

Sure, you can poke holes in what author Shenkman writes. Isn't that the whole point of history? As George Santayana said [and who is quoted in the Conclusion of this book] "History is always written wrong, and so always needs to be rewritten."

One of my jabs is aimed squarely at the chapter "World War II" where the author attempts to justify the appeasement of Hitler by Britain - specifically Chamberlain. He says the Munich Accord [the sell-out of Czechoslovakia] not only produced peace [however temporarily], but that Britain was in no position to take on Germany in 1938.

Now while that is certainly true, what he completely overlooks are the relative strengths of France and Germany at that time. France had a pact with the Czechs, and a move by Daladier and the French Army, Navy and Air Force [which dwarfed the Germans at that time] would have caused Hitler to cave in. Indeed, his own generals were absolutely petrified at the prospect of going head to head with France in 1938 with inferior tanks and less aircraft! The fact is, France did not need Britain in 1938 - except for moral support and, perhaps, the Royal Navy and Air Force. What the French did NOT have in 1938 was the courage of their convictions. And THAT Hitler banked upon.

He counted on it again a year later when, in September 1939, he invaded Poland, leaving his Western flank virtually unprotected except for a few scattered lower-level units. And by this time Britain was stronger both from a manpower and a materiel aspect. And so was France. An attack then and again Hitler would have had no choice but to capitulate as he was in no position to fight a two-front war.

Not only does the author not even mention that possibility, he then goes on to punch a few holes in his own Munich argument later in the chapter when he says that, when Germany attacked France in May 1940, the latter were STILL better equipped than the Germans in almost every respect [although he does acknowledge that the reason for their quick collapse - quicker than the Poles by the way - was a lack of a will to fight.

But that's the fun of looking back. Opinions will vary widely on what should or should not have been done, and you can argue forever as to who was right and who was wrong.

I like the book because what it made me do was go out and seek the more straightforward, no-axes-to-grind historical accounts that simply present the facts and allow you to draw your own conclusions. THAT's the way history should always be presented.

Richard Shenkman's "Legends , Lies & Cherished Myths of World History" is an entertaining and light-hearted attempt at dispelling popular misconceptions about world history. However, because Shenkman is more interested in debunking than educating, it is also full of contrarian viewpoints and odd interpretations, and ultimately this book falls flat on its face.

Too many of the "myths" that he "debunks" are done so based on faulty reasoning, minority viewpoints, or skewed perspectives. For instance, he argues that the Munich Agreement wasn't really "appeasement" because Britain wasn't prepared to go to war. To support that, he describes in depth the state of the British military. However, in doing so, he completely ignores the French military (which at the time was stronger than the German military); and he ignores his own arguments later in the book about how weak the German military was even in 1940. He also "breaks the news" that the German Army used 2.7 million horses in World War II. But anyone with any knowledge of the Eastern Front in World War II knows that the Germans relied heavily on horse transport, so this isn't an earth-shattering revelation.

One other episode reveals the weakness of this book. When discussing Lord Nelson, Shenkman takes delight in reporting that he had an adulterous affair. Again, this is another one of those "secrets" that almost everyone knows about. He also points out that Nelson died while standing upright on his quarterdeck during the Battle of Trafalgar, an act that Shenkman describes as "Stupid." But Shenkman gives no context to Nelson's actions and fails to tell the reader that a captain's (or admiral's) expected place of duty was on his quarterdeck, standing upright to inspire his men; had Nelson refused to do something so "stupid," he never would have even been a captain, let alone the most famous and beloved British hero of the century.

Shenkman also discusses some of the historic aspects of Christianity and Judaism. Unfortunately, he wanders into some controversial theological discussions, which further weakens the book.

At times, this book reads like a Dave Barry column or book, which, while funny at times, isn't necessarily a compliment in a book that is supposedly informative. Often, he says that the myths and lies arose when "some historians decided" or "some textbook writers got together and said," which doesn't really explain how these myths and misconceptions arose. Shenkman delights in poking holes in the conventional wisdom, but unfortunately his history is weak or biased at times and the book isn't very informative. The book's humor is its only redeeming quality.

Richard Schenkman admiots he doesn't know much about history. he says so throughout the book. "I don't know if this is true..." he writes at the beginning of nearly ten percent of the paragraphs in this slim volume, then tries to make some lame joke about the veracity of Cleopatra's looks or Catherine the Great's sexual proclivities.

It seems to me that, if you plan to write a book exploding the myths of popular history, you might want to start out by establishing your credentials to enhance believability instead of shooting yourself in the foot.

Most of the entries in this book are just a few pages, not enough to establish truth or lack thereof, but enough to provide lots of white space to enhance the thickness of the tome without bogging the reader down with content. To make matters worse, Schenkman writes in the worst Scholastic Book Club patronizing tone, which serves to put off the intelligent reader.

Unless you've tapped out all other sources, I wouldn't bother with this book.

That's right, it's good toilet reading! I like this book for one reason--it's very simple and easy to read, and the chapters are short. Nothing too deep here. But I do put a wrning on this book: NOT for those who are not familiar with world history! Why? I feel the book is kind of impressionable, and not always in a good way. While Shenkmans whole point seems to be to question everything we have been taught about history, it is rather 3rd grade stuff. For instance, the book makes a big deal about Rousseau being hard to get along with, as well as his less than fatherly attitudes towards his children. This is pretty common knowledge and really doesn't say much about his works or philosophy. The book also tends to draw judgements about people based upon a single statement or action they made. There is a lot of certainty at times, such as in his chapters about antiquity, when the reality is, there are a lot of points that are hazy. The book also spends time (for what reason) on mythic figures like Robin Hood and Frankenstein.

The reason I say stay away for the non-historian is that without a very critical notion of history, you will get the wrong idea, but it's still fun to read.

I have fond memories of reading this as a child and, although I certainly can't agree with everything in the book, wholly recommend it if for nothing else than a breath of fresh air in a overly PC world. Oh, it's a good read as well.

Fast ship. Priced right and was exactly as advertised. Great source of information. Look forward for more writings. Interesting reading.