Customer Reviews

Voodoo Histories: The Role of the Conspiracy Theory in Shaping Modern History

5 star:		(19)
4 star:		(11)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(6)
1 star:		(19)

 

 

After reading several of the negative reviews, I thought a more pointed one was needed in response to clear a few things up for those who have not read the book.

First off, the book is very well written and in a fast-paced, easy to read styles. It's not boring (regardless of agreeing with the author or not), nor is it overly long.

That being said, it brings me to my main point: this is not a scholarly, historically exhaustive work of research; it is an investigative look into how conspiracies begin and the people who latch on to them. Does that mean that it's not researched? No, there is a fairly extensive bibliography, and he has clearly documented his sources. However, it is not done in the way a historical textbook would do so -- but there again, it's not written from that point of view.

The key to remember here -- and this is for those negative reviewers who so adamantly want to hold on to their theories -- is the theme of how these theories get started, and why they become popular. This is of special interest to me because it is clear that there has to be a motivation for believing in most conspiracy theories; one has to *want* them to be true at some level for them to get off the ground, otherwise they wouldn't due to the incredible lack of factual support.

But here we come to the famous rebuttal offered up (which I have seen in the reviews here): "We are just asking questions. That's why it's a 'theory' and it's not perfect. But you have to admit that ____ and ____ don't add up!" This statement -- or a similar form -- is offered up every time a conspiracy theorist is confronted with hard facts. And this book addresses that exact issue, rather than going down the road of saying "here's this reference, and this one, and this one, and this one..." The fact is, any story in history, if viewed long enough and from enough angles (if I stand on my head and close one eye) can be a questionable occurence that looks "suspicious." I think if one investigated hard enough, they could probably find evidence suggesting that the NFL is fixed, politicians are really aliens, the military is spying on cats, that Jews are actually Chinese and that your own Mom is not who she says she is.

For those of us who have actually held a security clearance and worked in government, however, this book is quite refreshing and right on the money -- as much as we would like everyone to believe that we can pull off some grand conspiracy and keep huge secrets, we're just not that capable. Really, I wish it were different.

And to answer the question of why I gave it four stars instead of five, well...it's not that it wasn't good, I just save the five-star rating for something that really sets my hair on fire. If I throw those things out with every book I like, it hurts the credibility of the rating system. That's how I roll.

The author, a journalist, recounts a number of leading conspiracy theories, rebuts them, and exposes their common themes. With respect to some conspriacies -- such as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (the alleged Jewish conspiracy for world domination) -- he absolutely obliterates them with great panache. Others -- such as the Kennedy Assassination theories -- he rebuts in a more cursory fashion. What unites the conspiracy theories is part resentment of shadowy elites, part desire to explain the failure of one's own political movement to succeed, and part a desire to impose some rational explanation on random acts of evil or misfortune.

Conspiracy theories show staying power by defining some event as logically impossible -- for example the magic bullet that hit Kennedy and Connolly or the inability of Marilyn Monroe's body to absorb the amount of barbituates found in her or the lack of wreckage resembling an airplane by the Pentagon on 9/11. Such an impossible fact justifies conspiracy proponents to reject the conventional explantion and to propose all sorts of wild alternative theories. Such theories are resistant even to an attack on the core -- such as evidence showing that Oswald did not have to be a particularly great shot to hit Kennedy and that the path of the bullet does have a rational explanation. Such attacks involve too many details and complexities, thereby allowing the conspiracy proponent to refuse to see their truth.

This is interesting as far as it goes. But instead of exploring the reasons in human nature, politics, and history for such conspiracy theories, Aaronovitch just keeps jumping to new conspiracies and saying the same thing. Thus, the book does become a bit tiresome after a while.

I bought this review primarily on the basis of the review by "H.Josson". No-one in their right mind could write a review along the lines of the book being "delusional [and] lazy" (it simply isn't). The reviewer's hysterical reaction to what is a well-written and thought-provoking (if very depressing) book simply doesn't stack up. Why would a reviewer buy an early copy of this book - write a review which is borderline out-of-control and put their rantings up on Amazon UK and US? Could it be that Mr Aaronovitch has written this review himself? It has all the hallmarks of what he himself describes: ignore facts and focus on specious rumour, "no-one understands the secret mysteries as I do because I have special insights", throw mud at objective analysis to distract attention from the reviewer's own fantasies and, of course, the throw-away line "as crooked as a banker". This resonates with the anti-semitism described in Chapter One of the book, where the Jews were blamed for all the evils of the world. (I'm not defending the bankers here, but "crooked as a banker" is just so tacky!) If H.Josson is David Aaronovitch, it makes a very good conspiracy - unfortunately seen through rather quickly by the raft of comments on the review on Amazon UK.

The book is well-documented and the sources are of real writers, not, as in the case of the usual conspiracy-revealers, all referring to other "famous conspiracy experts".

My own view is that it is an extremely thoughtful explanation of why the gullible lock on to secret mysteries, conspiracies and insights and avoid any historical analysis, belying any familiarity with reality and current affairs or historical occurrences. The twelve selected conspiracies are all cogently explained and the psychological analysis of why the sad/gullible choose conspiracy over the most likely explanation (Ockham's razor) is depressingly rational. There are no shortage of people in the world who would rather believe fantasy over reality and, I suppose, for that reason alone I gave the book four stars. It presents a very sad, but convincing truth.

If you want to understand why people believe complete eyewash, this book is a very good place to start.

Ignore the reviewers who gave this book one star - they're conspiracy kooks who have not read the book. I have and it's brilliant.

A fabulous book that exposes the uproarious and troubling lapses of reason that bedevil American political culture. This is a lively look at conspiracy theories from Pearl Harbor to 9/11, from the assassination of Kennedy to the death of Diana.

Essential Reading.

The hyperventilating criticism of this book goes to demonstrate just how important Voodoo Histories is and how opportune is its US Publication. Scholarly, exhaustively researched and forensic in its analysis, it explodes the myth of various conspiracy theories at just the moment when their constant repetition seems to be establishing them as fact.
It is worth adding that it is also a hugely entertaining read which informs both fundamental issues around race, political dissent, notions of 'proof' etc. while proving invaluable when arguing with the the amateur, armchair conspiracy theorist who just doesn't believe in 'cock-ups' any more.
So, a book that makes the world a little less belligerent and also helps one to win fights around the dinner table. What more could anyone ask for..?

There is very little to criticize in this book. It is well-researched and timely, exposing some of the more deranged pathologies currently in danger of becoming mainstream. Aaronovitch examines the nuttier thoeries, such as the "truthers" of 9/11, and easily exposes the crass stupidity and paranoia of those who are gulled by them.
He makes one mistake, which I feel I must point out. He includes Immanuel Velikovsky among the "voodoo" historians. With all due respect to Mr Aaronovitch, this is to confuse the victim of pseudo-scholarship with the perpetrator. I can only assume that Aaronovitch never researched the Velikovsky Affair for himself, but relied on another, second-hand, source for his information. In fact, the destruction of Velikovsky's academic reputation was one of the most disgraceful episodes of American academic history. The Dean of Harvard, Harlow Shapley (a Marxist and by definition a fully-paid up voodoo historian himself), threatened Velikovsky's publisher Macmillan with a boycott of their books in every educational and academic instutition in America. Since Macmillan made about 90% of their profits from textbook sales to schools and universities, they were threatened with ruin, and had to ask Velikovsky to take his book ealsewhere. This was pure Stalinism, and without precedent in American publishing history.
Incidentally, the offending book, "Worlds in Collision", was highly praised by Albert Einstein, a close friend of Velikovsky; and he died with a heavily-annotated copy of Worlds in Collision open on his desk. And if Velikovsky was a voodoo historian, then so was Einstein, for Einstein wrote to Velikovsky that he had "proved beyond question" that cosmic catastrophes had afflicted the earth in historical times. Einstein's letter to that effect is still in the possession of Velikovsky's estate, and Mr Aaronovitch is welcome to view it, if he cares to contact the estate.

If you still believe in the tooth fairy, Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny then this book could be right up your alley. If however you have moved on and are one of those rare persons who possesses a faculty for critical thinking, one quickly becomes aware that this is a dishonest book written by a person who is.. Well, being dishonest. Mr Aaronovitch has produced a relentless polemic designed to foster the idea that anyone who questions the official version of an historical event no matter how doubtful, is at best delusional and at worst a dangerous nutcase - a view with which quite a few reviewers of this book would seem to concur. The truth is that the real dangerous nutcases are people like Mr Aaronovitch and his ilk who seeks to tighten your blindfold and keep you blissfully ignorant of the true horror that lurks in the shadows. It is a cleverly written book and Mr Aaronovitch is a 'clever' man whose motivation is to deceive not edify. I couldn't help thinking that perhaps he had been commissioned to write this book by Cass Sunstein, Obama's Czar for information awareness. He relies on a superficial cherry picking of facts to 'demolish' every 'conspiracy theory'of which you've heard and then some as he works his way towards his grand climax which is of course the greatest of all conspiracy theories, 911. On this subject I sense an almost panicky desperation as he attempts to make his case - those pesky conspiracy theorists why won't they believe why won't they? Those naughty murdering Arabs - thems the ones wot done it! This book says a lot more about Mr Aaronovitch than its subject matter - don't waste your money.

It may well have happened to you. You are chatting with a nice enough person, who seems sensible, but who suddenly reveals that the missions to the Moon were faked, or that Princess Diana was killed by governmental agents, or that the towers of the World Trade Center were loaded with demolition explosives before the planes flew into them. If you stay long enough, you may find that the speaker believes in all these ideas and more. If you are like me, you try to find an excuse to go talk with someone else; if you are more assertive and state your disbelief in such paranoid stories, you will not change the mind of the person telling the stories and you may well be considered a dupe at best and a conspirator at worst. That's surely what conspiracy fans of all sorts are going to think of David Aaronovitch, whose _Voodoo Histories: The Role of the Conspiracy Theory in Shaping Modern History_ (Riverhead Books) shows his refusal to buy into any of the surprising forms of paranoia spawned in the twentieth century. Indeed, he himself was confronted with a Moon landing denier who said the pictures from the Moon were fake as were all the landing missions. "My immediate reaction was one of skepticism," writes Aaronovitch. "It wasn't just that I was forearmed with arguments to disprove his theory; it was just that it offended my sense of plausibility." Even if he had had the arguments to hand, he probably could not have dissuaded the conspiracist, and spouting broad common sense objections (such as that it would take thousands of participants in such a conspiracy to make it work and all of them would have to resist any temptation to let the cat out of the bag) would not help either. It's probably best to slink away.

_Voodoo Histories_ represents resistance to such slinking, and though it may not change minds of true believers, it is a useful look at history. The conspiracies described here might be silly, might be without any evidence, might be completely delusional, but they made a difference. Just because you're paranoid, the joke goes, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you; and just because your paranoia is delusional doesn't mean it has no political or social effect. The effect of the delusions, and Aaronovitch covers plenty of them, is always bad; making decisions based on erroneous thoughts of conspiracy inherently is going to produce problems. He starts with one of the most influential books of the twentieth century, _The Protocols of the Elders of Zion_, which affected the vehemence by which World War Two was waged and continues to be cited by Christian groups and by Hamas. A chapter titled "Dead Deities" considers together the early demises of John F. Kennedy, Marilyn Monroe, and Princess Diana. Politics of the darkest sort is at the heart of most explanations for the death of Princess Diana. To believe that there was a plot against her (most popular reason: she was carrying a Muslim fetus) requires that there were split second timing and coincidences that only happen in Hollywood movies. Aaronson's common sense explanations often hinge on Ockham's razor: the simplest explanation that gives an answer is the best one. Here, it is pretty complicated to presume that Prince Philip (why he should be the mastermind I do not understand, but he is a favorite) somehow arranged that someone would know beforehand that Diana was going to be driven away, and knew the route, and had the Fiat sideswipe it on the way, all the time having filed down the catch pins of the seatbelts before she got in. It is simpler to remember that her driver was drunk and he was going too fast, and she had not put on the seatbelt that would have saved her. I'd chose the meaninglessness of sad bad luck and bad choices rather than an ostensibly explanatory but impossibly omniscient conspiracy anytime.

Writing of the birther proponents who won't accept that President Obama is a US citizen (but who often seem eager to accept flimsy evidence of his birth elsewhere), Aaronovitch says, "There is transparency, and then there is a perverse desire never to be satisfied." The interest in believing a conspiracy is so strong that evidence just doesn't play a role in conspiracists' evaluations. The police, FBI, two Republican independent prosecutors, and others have all found that Clinton aide Vince Foster killed himself in 1993, but charges of murder still circulate among those who find it more agreeable to fret along those lines, and who were among the first to broadcast conspiracy frettings on the internet. Which brings up an interesting observation Aaronovitch makes and which I had not seen before: "... conspiracy theories originate and are largely circulated among the educated and the middle class. The imagined model of an ignorant, priest-ridden peasantry or proletariat replacing religious and superstitious belief with equally far-fetched notions of how society works, turns out to be completely wrong." Indeed, lights like mathematician A. K. Dewdney or author Gore Vidal make embarrassingly frequent appearances here to back up their pet conspiracies. Aaronovitch explains many of the most famous conspiracies, including the one portrayed fictionally in _The Da Vinci Code_ or FDR's arrangement that Pearl Harbor would be bombed so he could go to war. Also examined are less well known ones, such as the Stalinist obsessions that resulted in show trials against Trotsky's supporters. Aaronovitch shows that he has been steeped in this stuff for years, and readers will be thankful to be dealing with his own amused though fact-filled descriptions rather than the evasive, vague, boring, and downright stupid books and websites he has had to go through. His book presents compelling demonstrations that far from being harmless crank-fueled obsessions, these conspiracies get us into trouble. He mentions only in passing one bogus conspiracy that has shaped recent world affairs and never existed: Remember all those weapons of mass destruction that Saddam had pointing in our direction?

I read the entire thing, in the same way that one cannot seem to change the television channel from a news report about some gruesome train wreck.

This book is apparently a sequel to the famous work by Dr. Floyd Ferris, "Why Do You Think You Think?" and is aimed at the same audience. As Ferris said, "if this book were addressed to a thinking audience ... one would have to be concerned with such matters as accuracy, validity, logic and the prestige of science. But it isn't. It's addressed to the public."

I gave the book two stars because it is a scholarly work, well researched and with an extensive bibliography. However, I feel Aaronovitch spends a lot of time beating around the bush instead of getting to the point. He seems to expect his reader to infer too much. His writing style does not flow well; his sentences are often awkward and just too crammed with facts, and his paragraphs sometimes seem randomly indented.
To be honest, I did not finish the book. I just couldn't stand it.