Pseudohistory

[Marcus Caelius]

I think you're overexplaining it. Some people will simply believe, period. The most famous example I can cite is that Arthur Conan Doyle absolutely refused to believe that Houdini did not have paranormal powers, even when Houdini insisted. There are educated people who truly believe that David Copperfield actually made the Statue of Liberty vanish. And so on. What's truly bothersiome is that I am not even mentioning the more-extreme cases.

[Pertinax]

Depressingly , I think you may be correct-though I hasten to add that I do not suggest you are mistaken.

[CiceroD]

but how popular is pseudohistory?

 

fringe groups will always believe what they want.

but how likely is pseudohistory to pollute the minds of the majority?

[Marcus Caelius]

but how popular is pseudohistory?

 

fringe groups will always believe what they want.

but how likely is pseudohistory to pollute the minds of the majority?

 

The answer is rather subjective: If 10% of the population believes in some sort of psuedohistory, is it "as many as 10%," or "as few as 10%"?

 

Then, you're going to have to define "pseudohistory." It can include everything from von Daniken to Pearl Harbor, Project Apollo, the Grassy Knoll, and 9/11. If you figure that an awful lot of people believe in at least one of these "alternate explanations," then my 10% figure is disgustingly low.

 

And then, there's the Bible/Koran/Book of Mormon. Is that a form of psuedohistory, or did things happen the way the four gospels, the five books of Moses, etc, say they did? There are an awful lot of Christians, Jews and Muslims in the world. Does this count as "polluting the minds of the majority"?

Edited November 28, 2006 by Marcus Caelius

[Pantagathus]

but how likely is pseudohistory to pollute the minds of the majority?

Well, TV Channels like the History Channel more and more either let information from psuedo-historical sources creep into what is presented or they flat out invite people like Graham Hancock to 'balance out' a presentation, and since the majority of adults get there history from there instead of books, it's a problem.

 

Also, think about 'historical' movies! How many people who have seen Braveheart know that's not exactly what happened?

[Marcus Caelius]

How many people who have seen Braveheart know that's not exactly what happened?

 

Or Ben Hur, Gladiator, The North and the South... The list is endless.

[Kosmo]

There is a very difficult question here.

First of all, even official histories are wrong, sometimes willingly and sometimes from misinterpretation, unfounded generalisiations etc

For example the marxist view of history was fed on a large part of Earth population for a lot of time.

Nationalism, racism, various religious, anticolonialism, liberalism, antifascism etc all were beliefs that distorted the view over historical events. Even worse, all are based on history so are very interested to rewrite her.

Pseudo-history, even if we use the term only for histories that are limited to weird aspects, it is more popular then the science of history.

Only the templars are the source of a huge mytholgy that Umberto Eco made fun of as I pointed, not long ago, to user Chimera. Maybe it is more fun to read about misterious secrets then about the production of bricks in Roman Britain.

The decrease of formal religion led to a host of beliefs that are not only pseudohistory, wicca, vodoo, jedi or scientolgy, but also more common beliefs in zodiac signs, feng-shui, crystal power, physical exercises based on cosmic energy (karate, taiji etc,), yoga, acupuncture etc.

This uses no scientific evidence and no source in main stream cultural life, but are so spread as nobody even notices them anymore.

I see this decline of both rationalist thinking and teologically structured religion as a very dangerous cultural evolution. Most people have good knowledge of their object of proffesional activity and hold weird beliefs on almost all other subjects. I pointed once to my wife and my mother that it is a contradiction between christianity and astrology, but I was not convincing and the fact is that astrolgy it's older and with better chances of survival than christianity.

Even scientifical activity it is influenced by this beliefs.

For example acupuncture it is a common practice and it is endorsed by trained proffesionals like the doctor of Romania's soccer team. To see them go from acupuncture to a monastry to pray before a game it is a contradiction between three sistems of belief. Chakra's, orthodox saints and a science based on evolutionist theories can be harmonized easily if you don't believe much in something, but a little bit in everything.

[Marcus Caelius]

Most people have good knowledge of their object of proffesional activity and hold weird beliefs on almost all other subjects.

 

I wouldn't go quite that far. However, as I've said here(?), it is appallingly easy to hoodwink very well-educated people. For example, Werhner von Braun actually believed Uri Geller could bend spoons with ESP; Conan Doyle believed in spirits and thought Houdini had paranormal powers; etc.

 

I've avoided advertizing another web site I'm involved with, but if you're really interested in rational thinking, take a look at http://www.randi.org/ You'll find me in the Forum, by the name of "Beady".

[The Augusta]

I see this decline of both rationalist thinking and teologically structured religion as a very dangerous cultural evolution.

 

Whilst I would agree with you, Kosmo, that a decline in rationalist thinking is a negative, I can only applaud the decline in theologically structured religion! And how do these two go together? I've never been able to understand how rationally thinking people can base their whole lives on a myth or myths in any case.

[Rameses the Great]

Here is a good link on Afrocentrism.

[Ursus]

but how popular is pseudohistory?

 

fringe groups will always believe what they want.

but how likely is pseudohistory to pollute the minds of the majority?

 

 

Christianity and Islam prove that today's fringe groups can be tomorrow's majority.

[Caesar CXXXVII]

Christianity and Islam prove that today's fringe groups can be tomorrow's majority.

 

 

Hey , But those two had God by their side

Edited December 9, 2006 by Caesar CXXXVII

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

I think one reason why pseudo history is popular is its heterodox appeal. People don't like reading dull, pedantic history books. That's for nutcases like myself and many of my fellow forum members. They like excitement, intrigue, something out of the ordinary. Unfortunately for them, real life is very, very ordinary.

However we should also be careful about allowing conventional historicity to have an absolute hegemony, or intellectual tyranny, in the academic field.

Remember, as historians, we are interested in historical facts and their interpretation, not with this or that point of view or school of thought. We should allow some leeway for alternative ideas. Whether we accept them or not would depend on how much historical merit these ideas carry

[Northern Neil]

The problem with pseudo history is that it often picks on sensational aspects of history which are emotive or romantic, but have little documentary material with which the pseudohistory can be countered. This is unfortunate, because it makes the study of certain fascinating topics off - limits. Take Atlantis. Thanks to the preposterous literature of Edgar Cayce and Graham Hancock, no historian of any prominence will touch this subject.

 

Which is a shame. Geologists for years have been saying that the central Atlantic ridge in the region of the Azores was once above sea level, similar to Iceland in the North Atlantic. It is thought that the subsidance of this land, due to America and Europe/Africa drifting apart, resulted in the gulf stream suddenly flowing north, rapidly bringing the Ice age to a close and raising sea levels precipitously. This would explain a lot of geology, and a lot of biblical and classical legends. But the pseudohistorians have rendered this topic, at least for the present, untouchable in proper academic circles.

 

Again, the Catholic and Orthodox churches have an immense case to answer vis-a-vis the rewriting of early Christian history, but who will touch the subject now it has been done to death by populist journalists, novelists making a fast buck and renegade catholics with an axe to grind??

Edited February 4, 2007 by Northern Neil

[Julius Ratus]

Pseudo-history may be a threat to history but a minor one compared to the threat posed by "nationalist" history. Many countries write histories that favour their nation exclusively. In modern Japanese textbooks, they refer to the Japanese holocaust in China as a "misunderstanding".

 

Then there are revisionist historians. I agree with them in that they disproove some accepted theories, but they usually push things to the opposite extreme.

 

When you add the pseudo-historians to the revisionists and nationalists it only adds credibility to Napoleon's utterance that history is mad up of the lies that have been agreed upon. (I think that it was Mr. Bonaparte that said that)