"The history books are written by the winners."

--Napoleon

Who would've guessed?

I would highly reccomend James Loewen's Lies My Teacher Told Me to anyone concerned about how history is presented and taught in schools. I am a middle school history teacher and have served on a committee for statewide textbook adoption. Some of the things published in textbooks are just patently not true, and others are presented in such a biased way that it's very hard to get at the truth. It's not kids' fault that they don't understand history - we don't have very good materials sometimes to teach it to them.

I agree with the reviewed author's contention that historians are not concerning themselves sufficiently with engaging with the public.

I have written a novel set in 1946 that will be released early next year. I did extensive research of primary sources prior to writing the novel, and read a great deal of things and talked to a lot of people about their memories and family histories while I was writing. However, now that I am editing I decided I would really like to have a good historian look it over. Do you think I could find one who felt this was worthwhile work for them to do? No. The book has feminist concerns, as well as being about PTSD and other relevant issues. But no. The two august historians I approached condescendingly rattled off scores of their books that I should read, and then offered the services of a PhD student, if they could find one.

Absolutely missing the point. That the research was done. That the novel was written. That I was looking for a critcial, informed, sympathetic eye.

It stunned me that these people, who write book after book that only a small audience of like minded academics will ever read, didn't see any role for themselves in vetting a popular novel, in which the writer was open minded and willing to take on their point of view.

It also stunned me that they obviously thought history was so much more imporatnt and relevant than fiction. Ha ha ha ha. ANd that they thought their role as a historian was so much more important than mine as a novelist. And yet I wonder which will inform most people's view of history more?

If historians genuinely care about mass ideas of history they should be engaging with the story producing culture that informs most people's ideas of it.

I also had this experience with the Australian War Memorial when I went there at the start of the writing process. They were unhelpful, patronising and couldn't have been more dismissive. Amazing.

All of these people need to have a good think about how exactly they are going to disseminate their knokwledge. More academic texts and specialised publishing house produced books are NOT going to do it.

As a novelist I believe we have our own lives and our own experiences to help us see through the stories we are told to find the truth, there. Someone or other said history is in fact the perennial story of the present.

Those who want to be believe in Great Men will put it all down to Churchill or Alexander the Great, etc.

Personally I really like Anthony Beevor as a historian. He is sceptical, and always remembers to look at what women and children and ordinary men were doing at the time, as though that matters, as well as the Great Men. As though that had some bearing on events. He is also sceptical of hero worship, seeing, in my opinion rightly, the desire of some people to find a hero is as strong as any innate traits of the 'hero' himself to command a loyal following.

... the minute I read that line about Bush combing books for parallels to his administration.

Everyone knows Bush doesn't read. Just one look at his face tells you that much.

You mean Versailles did not impose draconian reparations on Germany !?

You mean France did not re-occupy Rhineland !?

You mean Versailles did not take away Prussia from Germany including Danzig and cut off Germany's sea route !?

The only documented bad history here is by Laura Miller herself.

Doesn't anyone at Salon know sufficient basic history to know Laura Miller is all wrong ?

Laura picked at a few of the innacuracies in MacMillan's book. To be able to do so makes it difficult to accept the whole thesis.

I would just like to add that the example of "highland dress" isn't accurately portrayed, as far I'm aware. The modern style of highland dress was concocted by one of Victoria's entourage as a romanticised costume for vacations in Scotland. The image did not promote the cultural heritage of the Scots. If anything, it belittled the significant achievements of a small, peripheral nation by portraying Scots as rustics.

This outfit only became popular and associated with Scottish identity by the Scots in the Twentieth Century. The lesson has been learned, however, and the kilt, short black jacket, stockings, etc., are worn with the same acceptance of the contradictions of modern-tradition as the white wedding dress.

The rural poor of Scotland did have a history of distinctive clothing, which has been revived by some purists. The clan culture is worth studying as an alternative to other political structures. But the issue most obviously belittled by your review, if not MacMillan's book, is the rich history of the Scottish democratic intellect.

When the Chinese premier, Zhou en-lai, was asked what he thought has been the effect of the French revolution, he said that it was too soon to tell.

Which suggests that there are two parts to history. One is establishing the facts. That in itself can be contentious enough. Some facts are easy to agree upon. No one disputes when Naploleon died. But the debate goes on about what he died of, all based on evaluating the same bits of information available.

The second is thathistory isn't about a series of facts, it is what meaning we give to those facts. The amount of information can be overwhelming so judgements are made about the relative importance of facts.

An relevant analogy is the current debate about the US vs Canadian health care systems. The facts about the two systems fill volumes, yet it doesn't help in determining which system is better since millions of people are involved. "Better" for whom? The average person? the rich? the poor? the critically ill? the normally healthy? Add to that the deliberate distortions made by parties with an agenda and is it any wonder that there is no "judgement of history" about what would best?

Kilt: a garment worn by Americans in Scotland and Scotish in America - Abrose Bierce