What do you think?
Rate this book
Fake History: Ten Great Lies and How They Shaped the World
A fun, authoritative and alternative history of the world that exposes some of the biggest lies ever told and how they've been used over time.
Lincoln did not believe all men were created equal.
The Aztecs were not slaughtered by the Spanish Conquistadors.
And Churchill was not the man that people love to remember.
Journalist and author Otto English takes apart ten of the greatest lies from history and shows how our present continues to be twisted and manipulated by the fabrications of the past.
Much of what we assume to be true or are encouraged to believe to be true is simply wrong. Whether propagated by politicians and think tanks, populists or the media, the family tales of childhood or your Facebook friend's feed – fake history is everywhere and it impacts, ever more, on our modern world.
This book dismantles the lazy and pernicious tropes of the past as Otto English sets out to redress the balance and reclaim truth from those who seek to pervert it.
Fake History will expose everything you weren't told in school and reveal why you weren't taught it.
Lincoln did not believe all men were created equal.
The Aztecs were not slaughtered by the Spanish Conquistadors.
And Churchill was not the man that people love to remember.
Journalist and author Otto English takes apart ten of the greatest lies from history and shows how our present continues to be twisted and manipulated by the fabrications of the past.
Much of what we assume to be true or are encouraged to believe to be true is simply wrong. Whether propagated by politicians and think tanks, populists or the media, the family tales of childhood or your Facebook friend's feed – fake history is everywhere and it impacts, ever more, on our modern world.
This book dismantles the lazy and pernicious tropes of the past as Otto English sets out to redress the balance and reclaim truth from those who seek to pervert it.
Fake History will expose everything you weren't told in school and reveal why you weren't taught it.
257 pages, Kindle Edition
Published June 10, 2021
232 people are currently reading
2884 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 229 reviews
August 6, 2021
This is a mixed bag that deconstructs "great lies" of history and attempts, with varying degrees of success, to find parallels with the current political reality. The brilliant chapters on the hyper-mythologised version of Winston Churchill and weaponising of WWI/WWII memory in modern Britain will resonate with any Brit who has had the misfortune to question Churchill's legacy or, heaven forbid, neglected to wear a paper flower. I even liked the chapter on the dubious origins of "curry."
Unfortunately, the author's attempts to frame history in the context of the present day leads to some laboured comparisons. The Birtherism that blighted the Obama era was terrible indeed, but I don't think it has much to do with Britain's antiquated peerage system. And while I share in the loathing of Donald Trump, I can't agree that "The Apprentice" is analogous to Hitler's Nuremberg rallies. Otto English is passionate about his subjects and beliefs, but sometimes he needs to wind his neck in.
Overall this book is worth a shot. You'll probably learn a lot. You'll also roll your eyes a fair few times.
Unfortunately, the author's attempts to frame history in the context of the present day leads to some laboured comparisons. The Birtherism that blighted the Obama era was terrible indeed, but I don't think it has much to do with Britain's antiquated peerage system. And while I share in the loathing of Donald Trump, I can't agree that "The Apprentice" is analogous to Hitler's Nuremberg rallies. Otto English is passionate about his subjects and beliefs, but sometimes he needs to wind his neck in.
Overall this book is worth a shot. You'll probably learn a lot. You'll also roll your eyes a fair few times.
June 7, 2024
Na jó, hát mit is várhatnánk egy Scott nevű skóttól, aki Otto English álnevet választott magának?
Szerintem nem érdemes azzal az előfeltételezéssel olvasni, hogy ez történelemtudomány. A történelemtudománynak (és minden tudománynak) ugyanis valahol feltétele, hogy az ember összegyűjti az adatokat, aztán levon belőlük valamilyen következtetést. Ha van is előzetes hipotézise, azért csak az adat az úr. Englishnek viszont van egy karcolhatatlan elképzelése arról, hogy a nacionalizmus hülyeség, a nemzetek története merő hazugsággyár, a Brit Birodalom pedig szégyellje össze magát. Amivel egy csomó ponton egyet is értek. Ebből kiindulva a szerző összegereblyézik mindenféle kis színest, elegyíti őket némi jópofáskodással*, egy kis csúsztatással, aztán az egész masszát áradó lendülettel az arcunkba tolja. Történelmi evidenciákat úgy ad elő, mintha azok egy általa felfedezett földrész partvidékei lennének, és úgy megy neki a nemzeti panteon legendáinak, mintha személyes sérelmeket akarna megtorolni rajtuk. Ez amúgy nem feltétlenül rossz - lehet ebből szórakoztató, sőt: intelligens kötetet építeni. Csak hát ez nem tudomány - sokkal inkább rokon a propagandával. De végtére is az is egy műfaj.
Lejön az egészről, hogy a prioritás a szerző részéről saját indulata megélése volt. Aminek következtében szó sincs építkezésről. Pedig ha csak a fejezetcímeket nézzük, hihetnénk azt is, English egy ívet kíván létrehozni. Hisz azokban világosan meg van határozva egy állítás (pl.: "Régen az emberek azt hitték, a föld lapos"), amit a szerző bizonnyal cáfolni kíván, valamint ott az alcím is (pl. "A történelemhamisítás története"), ami mintha arra utalna, hogy egy általánosabb tematikus rendbe lesznek illesztve a fejtegetések. Aztán kiderül, hogy ilyen tematikus rend jószerével nem létezik, English csak csapong, össze-vissza hajigálja elénk mindazt a tudást, amit innen-onnan összecsipegetett, nem csoda, ha az ember egyes fejezetek végén őszintén elgondolkodik azon, hogy volt-e itt mondva valami érdemleges, vagy csak ventilált egy jóízűt az író saját magának.
Nem először tapasztalom azt az ambivalens érzést, hogy egy olvasmányom gondolatiságával mélységesen egyetértek, de a megírás módja egyenesen taszít. Hisz végtére is mit állít English? Elsősorban azt, hogy aki hülye, az többnyire annyira hülye, hogy nem is tudja, hogy hülye. Ez egy nagyon alapvető igazság. Aztán még azt is állítja, hogy vannak emberek, akik nem annyira hülyék, viszont morális hulladékok. Ők aztán elmennek politikusnak vagy politikai tanácsadónak, és megélnek a hülyékből. Azt mondják nekik, amit hallani akarnak - például hogy a hülyék igazából nem is hülyék, hiszen az angol (magyar, piréz, stb.) nemzethez tartoznak, és egy angol (magyar, piréz, stb.) szervileg nem lehet hülye, mert ha hülye lenne, akkor franciának vagy németnek születik. No most ami a morális hulladékokat illeti, hát igen, valóban kitapintható egy ilyen tendencia. Csak az van, hogy English ebből az egészből két következtetést von le:
1.) Mivel a másik oldal hülyéi úgyis hülyék, ezért nyugodtan szálljunk bele a mítoszaikba páros lábbal. Küldjük el Churchillt a búsba, például. Meggyőzni ezzel se fogjuk őket, de legalább szórakozunk rajtuk.
2.) Ráadásul ezzel dédelgetjük azoknak a lelkét is, akik velünk értenek egyet - hisz valójában mi is azt szeretjük a legjobban, ha ki van mondva nyíltan, hogy az "ők" és a "hülyék" tulajdonképpen szinonimák. Ettől valahogy jobban érezzük magunkat.
Nem mondom, hogy a fenti metódus olyasvalami, amit én sose követtem el, mert de. Ugyanakkor megiscsak jó lenne hinni, hogy ennél többre vagyunk hivatva. Mert végtére is nem az a gond, hogy mások mást gondolnak, mint mi - hisz az ember sokféle. Hanem hogy hajlandóak-e ezek mellett a gondolatok mellett úgy érvelni, hogy a másikat is embernek tekintik. Mégpedig olyan embernek, akiről feltételezik, hogy respektálható céljai és motivációi lehetnek. Jó, hát igaz, ami igaz, ez a fajta hozzáállás meglehetősen energiaigényes, néha meddő is**. De az semmiképpen sem jó módszer, ha a másik oldal leegyszerűsítő populizmusára válaszul mi meg megteremtjük annak tükörképét: a mi leegyszerűsítő populizmusunkat.
* A jópofizás egyik megjelenési formája itt is (mint oly sok helyen) a szóvicc. Sajnálatos módon.
** Alighanem terméketlen próbálkozás volna például egy megélhetési politikussal vitába ereszkedni, azon egyszerű oknál fogva, hogy egy megélhetési politikus nem azt mondja, amit gondol, hanem azt, amit szerepe szerint gondolnia kell.
Szerintem nem érdemes azzal az előfeltételezéssel olvasni, hogy ez történelemtudomány. A történelemtudománynak (és minden tudománynak) ugyanis valahol feltétele, hogy az ember összegyűjti az adatokat, aztán levon belőlük valamilyen következtetést. Ha van is előzetes hipotézise, azért csak az adat az úr. Englishnek viszont van egy karcolhatatlan elképzelése arról, hogy a nacionalizmus hülyeség, a nemzetek története merő hazugsággyár, a Brit Birodalom pedig szégyellje össze magát. Amivel egy csomó ponton egyet is értek. Ebből kiindulva a szerző összegereblyézik mindenféle kis színest, elegyíti őket némi jópofáskodással*, egy kis csúsztatással, aztán az egész masszát áradó lendülettel az arcunkba tolja. Történelmi evidenciákat úgy ad elő, mintha azok egy általa felfedezett földrész partvidékei lennének, és úgy megy neki a nemzeti panteon legendáinak, mintha személyes sérelmeket akarna megtorolni rajtuk. Ez amúgy nem feltétlenül rossz - lehet ebből szórakoztató, sőt: intelligens kötetet építeni. Csak hát ez nem tudomány - sokkal inkább rokon a propagandával. De végtére is az is egy műfaj.
Lejön az egészről, hogy a prioritás a szerző részéről saját indulata megélése volt. Aminek következtében szó sincs építkezésről. Pedig ha csak a fejezetcímeket nézzük, hihetnénk azt is, English egy ívet kíván létrehozni. Hisz azokban világosan meg van határozva egy állítás (pl.: "Régen az emberek azt hitték, a föld lapos"), amit a szerző bizonnyal cáfolni kíván, valamint ott az alcím is (pl. "A történelemhamisítás története"), ami mintha arra utalna, hogy egy általánosabb tematikus rendbe lesznek illesztve a fejtegetések. Aztán kiderül, hogy ilyen tematikus rend jószerével nem létezik, English csak csapong, össze-vissza hajigálja elénk mindazt a tudást, amit innen-onnan összecsipegetett, nem csoda, ha az ember egyes fejezetek végén őszintén elgondolkodik azon, hogy volt-e itt mondva valami érdemleges, vagy csak ventilált egy jóízűt az író saját magának.
Nem először tapasztalom azt az ambivalens érzést, hogy egy olvasmányom gondolatiságával mélységesen egyetértek, de a megírás módja egyenesen taszít. Hisz végtére is mit állít English? Elsősorban azt, hogy aki hülye, az többnyire annyira hülye, hogy nem is tudja, hogy hülye. Ez egy nagyon alapvető igazság. Aztán még azt is állítja, hogy vannak emberek, akik nem annyira hülyék, viszont morális hulladékok. Ők aztán elmennek politikusnak vagy politikai tanácsadónak, és megélnek a hülyékből. Azt mondják nekik, amit hallani akarnak - például hogy a hülyék igazából nem is hülyék, hiszen az angol (magyar, piréz, stb.) nemzethez tartoznak, és egy angol (magyar, piréz, stb.) szervileg nem lehet hülye, mert ha hülye lenne, akkor franciának vagy németnek születik. No most ami a morális hulladékokat illeti, hát igen, valóban kitapintható egy ilyen tendencia. Csak az van, hogy English ebből az egészből két következtetést von le:
1.) Mivel a másik oldal hülyéi úgyis hülyék, ezért nyugodtan szálljunk bele a mítoszaikba páros lábbal. Küldjük el Churchillt a búsba, például. Meggyőzni ezzel se fogjuk őket, de legalább szórakozunk rajtuk.
2.) Ráadásul ezzel dédelgetjük azoknak a lelkét is, akik velünk értenek egyet - hisz valójában mi is azt szeretjük a legjobban, ha ki van mondva nyíltan, hogy az "ők" és a "hülyék" tulajdonképpen szinonimák. Ettől valahogy jobban érezzük magunkat.
Nem mondom, hogy a fenti metódus olyasvalami, amit én sose követtem el, mert de. Ugyanakkor megiscsak jó lenne hinni, hogy ennél többre vagyunk hivatva. Mert végtére is nem az a gond, hogy mások mást gondolnak, mint mi - hisz az ember sokféle. Hanem hogy hajlandóak-e ezek mellett a gondolatok mellett úgy érvelni, hogy a másikat is embernek tekintik. Mégpedig olyan embernek, akiről feltételezik, hogy respektálható céljai és motivációi lehetnek. Jó, hát igaz, ami igaz, ez a fajta hozzáállás meglehetősen energiaigényes, néha meddő is**. De az semmiképpen sem jó módszer, ha a másik oldal leegyszerűsítő populizmusára válaszul mi meg megteremtjük annak tükörképét: a mi leegyszerűsítő populizmusunkat.
* A jópofizás egyik megjelenési formája itt is (mint oly sok helyen) a szóvicc. Sajnálatos módon.
** Alighanem terméketlen próbálkozás volna például egy megélhetési politikussal vitába ereszkedni, azon egyszerű oknál fogva, hogy egy megélhetési politikus nem azt mondja, amit gondol, hanem azt, amit szerepe szerint gondolnia kell.
February 28, 2022
Hard to convey how truly appalling this book is. One thing it isn't is a history book. It's a rambling disjointed collection of hobby-horse baseless opinions. The episode on 'Hilter wasn't a failed artist', is prime territory. The author even lets slip that Hilter was a failed artist, (after all he was twice rejected from the Vienna Academy of Fine Arts!), but he still carries on trying to undermine this historical fact. As though this fact would in some unfathomable way lead us to humanize the monster. The author then goes on to tell us that Mein Kampf is not a good book. Well thanks for that, without you we would have all thought it was wonderful.
It's like this throughout. No facts, no analysis, just opinionated nonsense.
It reminds me of one of those Christmas novelty books thrown together purely to make a quick buck.
It's like this throughout. No facts, no analysis, just opinionated nonsense.
It reminds me of one of those Christmas novelty books thrown together purely to make a quick buck.
August 6, 2022
In this compelling and entertaining study, Otto English analyses a varied array of topics - ranging from the anti-Carthage propaganda of Ancient Rome to the self-harming nostalgia fest of Brexit - to provide ample evidence that fake history is nothing new. A keen eye for the absurd laces a much needed vein of humour into this undeniably dark and disturbing look at the human capacity for generating and believing nonsensical myths, especially when they pander to our prejudices.
March 14, 2025
I think the purpose of this book is not to convince the public that this opionanted author is right about all the opinions he expressed in his writing, he just meant to educate people that maybe we’ve been inoculated some ideas, totally wrong, that history is entirely subjective depending on which nation is talking about it, that maybe national pride is some kind of a stupid notion, when putting things into a global persective. Why should you be proud about being a Brit? Its leaders made good and wrong decisions. Why should you be proud of being Russian? Etc etc. No nation is better than any other.
So, no , this is not a history book, it’s a book about points of view regarding historical matters.
So, no , this is not a history book, it’s a book about points of view regarding historical matters.
September 4, 2021
OTTO ENGLISH - FAKE HISTORY 5/10
Book 19 of 2021.
In the end, it felt like ranting of a disgruntled old-man by Otto English (Andrew Scott), expunging history while evolving into banality.
"It's easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled.The first rule of propaganda is that the target audience must be gullible enough to believe everything they hear or read.The second is that an attractive lie is always better than the ugly truth, and the third is that even if people realise that they're being brainwashed, they willingly buy it anyway." You can see that all over social media these days, lots of disinformation.
Inside each chapter there’s no real sense of effort to convince, just an array of self-congratulatory scrutiny and bizarre deducement, conspiracy theories and pretending to uncover some irrefutable truth. It felt like the ramblings of a madman.
So, what is the truth?
Book 19 of 2021.
In the end, it felt like ranting of a disgruntled old-man by Otto English (Andrew Scott), expunging history while evolving into banality.
"It's easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled.The first rule of propaganda is that the target audience must be gullible enough to believe everything they hear or read.The second is that an attractive lie is always better than the ugly truth, and the third is that even if people realise that they're being brainwashed, they willingly buy it anyway." You can see that all over social media these days, lots of disinformation.
Inside each chapter there’s no real sense of effort to convince, just an array of self-congratulatory scrutiny and bizarre deducement, conspiracy theories and pretending to uncover some irrefutable truth. It felt like the ramblings of a madman.
So, what is the truth?
June 13, 2024
Overall, Fake History: Ten Great Lies and How They Shaped the World was an excellently researched and written work of non-fiction. Unfortunately, I feel the audiobook was not the best way to experience it. With that in mind, I will talk about what I didn't like about the audiobook, but note that it didn't affect my rating of the book overall.
Fake History is both important and timely. It looks at the stories we tell both on a personal and political level, and how they shape the society in which we live. Essentially, almost everything is built on lies, but it's important not to let a good story get in the way of the truth.
Otto English obviously put a lot of research into writing Fake History, and it shows. At first, it seems like a lot of the information might be tangential, but English brings all the threads together to paint a very clear picture. While not everything is quite as revelatory as the title might suggest, there were certain lies that I believed that it was fascinating to learn were not exactly as I had been told.
That said, Fake History does lack nuance at moments. English has a very clear bias in his writing, which was made clearer in his narration of the audiobook. While he is critical of Britain and the Empire, he does not write about it with the same vitriol as he does of other Empires and countries. Churchill is represented as a cunning statesman who used propaganda to his own ends, and yet Hitler is represented as a bumbling nobody who almost accidentally gained power. There is danger in that narrative, which ironically, English points out himself in a later chapter when talking about the Kim dynasty of North Korea, which simply highlights the inherent contradictions of personal bias that I found rather distracting throughout the book.
That said, despite the moments of personal bias, I felt it worked well overall - especially since the subject itself encourages readers to do their own thinking and their own research to counteract it. There is a lot of value in Fake History, and the chapters on family stories and the ultimate conclusion of the book were where it really shone. English cunningly sets the whole book up to showcase the bias that each of us holds. Is there really a difference between the giant statue of a golden dog unveiled in Turkmenistan, and Britain's own statue of Petra, the Blue Peter dog in Manchester? What we perceive as foolish and grandiose in the context of other countries somehow becomes accepted and normalised in our own. This was a lesson sorely needed, and one that English spends his entire book setting up.
From an audiobook perspective, I didn't find Otto English's narration particularly engaging. And, as a bilingual German speaker, I found his butchering of German pronunciation particularly hard to stomach. Hearing him struggle to pronounce German, French, Nahuatl, and other languages was hard on the ears and I do wish a bit more time and effort had been put into learning the correct pronunciations out of respect to the cultural heritages that those languages represent.
Overall, I enjoyed Fake History. It was easy to digest and had something of importance to say. In a world with so much information at our fingertips, it's more and more important to be able to sort the wheat from the chaff, and Otto English's book goes a long way in helping do just that.
I have rounded down my rating because Goodreads doesn't allow half stars, but for me, this was a 3.5 read.
Fake History is both important and timely. It looks at the stories we tell both on a personal and political level, and how they shape the society in which we live. Essentially, almost everything is built on lies, but it's important not to let a good story get in the way of the truth.
Otto English obviously put a lot of research into writing Fake History, and it shows. At first, it seems like a lot of the information might be tangential, but English brings all the threads together to paint a very clear picture. While not everything is quite as revelatory as the title might suggest, there were certain lies that I believed that it was fascinating to learn were not exactly as I had been told.
That said, Fake History does lack nuance at moments. English has a very clear bias in his writing, which was made clearer in his narration of the audiobook. While he is critical of Britain and the Empire, he does not write about it with the same vitriol as he does of other Empires and countries. Churchill is represented as a cunning statesman who used propaganda to his own ends, and yet Hitler is represented as a bumbling nobody who almost accidentally gained power. There is danger in that narrative, which ironically, English points out himself in a later chapter when talking about the Kim dynasty of North Korea, which simply highlights the inherent contradictions of personal bias that I found rather distracting throughout the book.
That said, despite the moments of personal bias, I felt it worked well overall - especially since the subject itself encourages readers to do their own thinking and their own research to counteract it. There is a lot of value in Fake History, and the chapters on family stories and the ultimate conclusion of the book were where it really shone. English cunningly sets the whole book up to showcase the bias that each of us holds. Is there really a difference between the giant statue of a golden dog unveiled in Turkmenistan, and Britain's own statue of Petra, the Blue Peter dog in Manchester? What we perceive as foolish and grandiose in the context of other countries somehow becomes accepted and normalised in our own. This was a lesson sorely needed, and one that English spends his entire book setting up.
From an audiobook perspective, I didn't find Otto English's narration particularly engaging. And, as a bilingual German speaker, I found his butchering of German pronunciation particularly hard to stomach. Hearing him struggle to pronounce German, French, Nahuatl, and other languages was hard on the ears and I do wish a bit more time and effort had been put into learning the correct pronunciations out of respect to the cultural heritages that those languages represent.
Overall, I enjoyed Fake History. It was easy to digest and had something of importance to say. In a world with so much information at our fingertips, it's more and more important to be able to sort the wheat from the chaff, and Otto English's book goes a long way in helping do just that.
I have rounded down my rating because Goodreads doesn't allow half stars, but for me, this was a 3.5 read.
November 26, 2021
The best bit about this book is watching the author descend into exactly the things he outlines about others.
It is a great book to read but be assured it is certainly not a strict factual account of history with balanced views on what might have happened. Instead the sources are carefully edited to bear out the opinions of the author and meet his agenda. Whilst stating how our history is based on the version we read or were taught when younger, he clearly chooses the versions he wants to make his point.
It is a shame as some of the sources are excellently picked and if balanced with others would give a really good understanding of areas the reader may not know, particularly those times before the over documented 19th and 20th centuries.
The other overplayed line and as such an annoyance once you get beyond the first chapter is the author's rather worrying obsession with a narrow aspect of politics. Yes if you exist in an echo chamber on Twitter to keep endlessly fixating on Johnson is bad, Trump is worse, and Brexit was the end of the world then you will read nothing new, Again if you are after balance then maybe this book isn't for you.
All in all I'm sure some will lap it up and believe every word but if you are seriously examining the parralels of fake history through time maybe that book is one you should write instead.
It is a great book to read but be assured it is certainly not a strict factual account of history with balanced views on what might have happened. Instead the sources are carefully edited to bear out the opinions of the author and meet his agenda. Whilst stating how our history is based on the version we read or were taught when younger, he clearly chooses the versions he wants to make his point.
It is a shame as some of the sources are excellently picked and if balanced with others would give a really good understanding of areas the reader may not know, particularly those times before the over documented 19th and 20th centuries.
The other overplayed line and as such an annoyance once you get beyond the first chapter is the author's rather worrying obsession with a narrow aspect of politics. Yes if you exist in an echo chamber on Twitter to keep endlessly fixating on Johnson is bad, Trump is worse, and Brexit was the end of the world then you will read nothing new, Again if you are after balance then maybe this book isn't for you.
All in all I'm sure some will lap it up and believe every word but if you are seriously examining the parralels of fake history through time maybe that book is one you should write instead.
March 3, 2025
Prin multe exemple, cu umor si ironie, autorul ne reaminteste cat de importanta este gandirea critica si verificarea informatiilor.
Asa cum niciun om nu este perfect sau complet bun/rau, nici istoria omenirii nu poate si nu este corecta, morala sau lipsita de greseli - idealizarea unor vremuri din trecut, inventarea de noi si noi dusmani sau accentuarea unor temeri irationale, glorificarea unor personaje fara a pune in balanta si efectele negative ale actiunilor lor si demonizarea absoluta a altor personaje, toate acestea au o influenta enorma in manipularea maselor de catre cei ce isi doresc controlul si puterea.
Intr-o lume plina de "certitudini" este foarte sanatos sa pui la indoiala orice - asa cum si autorul ne provoaca la finalul cartii. 😊
Asa cum niciun om nu este perfect sau complet bun/rau, nici istoria omenirii nu poate si nu este corecta, morala sau lipsita de greseli - idealizarea unor vremuri din trecut, inventarea de noi si noi dusmani sau accentuarea unor temeri irationale, glorificarea unor personaje fara a pune in balanta si efectele negative ale actiunilor lor si demonizarea absoluta a altor personaje, toate acestea au o influenta enorma in manipularea maselor de catre cei ce isi doresc controlul si puterea.
Intr-o lume plina de "certitudini" este foarte sanatos sa pui la indoiala orice - asa cum si autorul ne provoaca la finalul cartii. 😊
July 18, 2021
Thoroughy enjoyable way to find out how so much of life's preconceptions are mistaken and how cognitive dissonance and the Dunning-Kruger affect lead us astray.
This is a well-researched and excellently written book on how supposed facts from history and our world are untrue and why humans are so keen to believe them. The desire to buy into enormous lies feeds our brain through its desire to belong. Through many examples over hundreds of years, Otto English (or Andrew Scott, his real name) convinces through asking the questions that he reminds us of at the end of the book:
"Is that true?"
"Did that really happen?"
"Who benefits?"
When I was at school, we were challenged to question everything. I became a pain throughout my career and wider life as a result. I can't help it but am amazed at the vast majority that are willing to accept the most nonsensical of lies.
The problem is that there is no easy way to fight this battle and, with the internet (especially via Facebook) the challenge is growing. Trump could never have become President nor Johnson PM without all the factors that Otto so rightly shows. Their lies are bought into by millions and continue to be as so many have been transfixed in the past.
I wish they would read this book - tho' they probably wouldn't believe it!
This is a well-researched and excellently written book on how supposed facts from history and our world are untrue and why humans are so keen to believe them. The desire to buy into enormous lies feeds our brain through its desire to belong. Through many examples over hundreds of years, Otto English (or Andrew Scott, his real name) convinces through asking the questions that he reminds us of at the end of the book:
"Is that true?"
"Did that really happen?"
"Who benefits?"
When I was at school, we were challenged to question everything. I became a pain throughout my career and wider life as a result. I can't help it but am amazed at the vast majority that are willing to accept the most nonsensical of lies.
The problem is that there is no easy way to fight this battle and, with the internet (especially via Facebook) the challenge is growing. Trump could never have become President nor Johnson PM without all the factors that Otto so rightly shows. Their lies are bought into by millions and continue to be as so many have been transfixed in the past.
I wish they would read this book - tho' they probably wouldn't believe it!
March 17, 2023
This book has the grammar of a well written text. No references were to be found and the content strayed wildly from what the chapter titles were. I felt like I was just reading someone’s opinion piece the whole time, I know that’s what all history books are, but if you don’t reference things how do I know that what you’re saying is correct and the history you’re calling fake isn’t.
I wouldn’t recommend this book to Lucy as one of the sentences in the early chapters doesn’t have a full stop. Where is the proof read?
I wouldn’t recommend this book to Lucy as one of the sentences in the early chapters doesn’t have a full stop. Where is the proof read?
August 13, 2021
History is written, not only by the winners, but also by the spinners.
English gives some rather colourful examples, such as the spin around the Battle of Britain. The story spread by the propaganda office was that 'plucky little britain' stood up against the onslaught of the German juggernaut. In fact, the RAF was pretty much on par with the Luftwaffe, even before the introduction of the Spitfire, and had a much shorter commute, so-to-speak. When a British pilot was downed, he could take a bus back to base. The result was pretty much a foregone conclusion.
The book was written during the Covid-19 pandemic, and there are lots of references to Boris Johnson and Donald Trump, with their respective (but different) mismanagement.
English gives some rather colourful examples, such as the spin around the Battle of Britain. The story spread by the propaganda office was that 'plucky little britain' stood up against the onslaught of the German juggernaut. In fact, the RAF was pretty much on par with the Luftwaffe, even before the introduction of the Spitfire, and had a much shorter commute, so-to-speak. When a British pilot was downed, he could take a bus back to base. The result was pretty much a foregone conclusion.
The book was written during the Covid-19 pandemic, and there are lots of references to Boris Johnson and Donald Trump, with their respective (but different) mismanagement.
August 29, 2021
There is nothing in there that is too shocking or unknown and it's not quite as focused (or depressing) as something like Zinn's A People's History of the United States, but English is really funny and keeps your attention even when talking about things you might already know about.
February 2, 2025
Reading Fake History was a frustrating experience for me. It’s full of interesting stories, many of which are well-told. In fact, it’s too full. It lacks a clear shape and I think the author needed a much more interventionist editor to bring order to the project.
The dust jacket says that Otto English started out blogging and writing pieces for online newspapers; this makes sense. Reading Fake History is a lot like reading a blog; post after post, one thing and then another. As stated earlier, it’s interesting. It’s also punchily written and at times, laugh out loud funny. But mostly it’s chaotic and disjointed.
One of my all-time favourite books is David Aaronovitch’s Voodoo Histories, and on its surface Fake History seemed to offer something similar.
Reading Otto English’s book, however, served to remind me of how good Voodoo Histories is. Aaronovitch is thorough and patient in the stories he tells, while English is breathless, seemingly distracted by the next example or incident that comes to mind. His book would have been better divided into shorter sections without the pretense of a thesis for each chapter. Or it should have been radically reorganized into a more focused, disciplined book.
The dust jacket says that Otto English started out blogging and writing pieces for online newspapers; this makes sense. Reading Fake History is a lot like reading a blog; post after post, one thing and then another. As stated earlier, it’s interesting. It’s also punchily written and at times, laugh out loud funny. But mostly it’s chaotic and disjointed.
One of my all-time favourite books is David Aaronovitch’s Voodoo Histories, and on its surface Fake History seemed to offer something similar.
Reading Otto English’s book, however, served to remind me of how good Voodoo Histories is. Aaronovitch is thorough and patient in the stories he tells, while English is breathless, seemingly distracted by the next example or incident that comes to mind. His book would have been better divided into shorter sections without the pretense of a thesis for each chapter. Or it should have been radically reorganized into a more focused, disciplined book.
April 17, 2024
While this had its interesting parts, this book failed to convince me.
The author is clearly passionate about the subject and well informed, which also leads him to jump around in the topic and talk about connected things, which I personally didn't like.
The author is clearly passionate about the subject and well informed, which also leads him to jump around in the topic and talk about connected things, which I personally didn't like.
March 28, 2023
I have finished reading “Fake History: Ten Great Lies and How They Shaped the World” by Otto English.
The premise of this book is to explore and debunk ten great history myths which are frequently passed off as truth. The author sets his case straight away. Fake History is based on lies which are used to push agendas today. This often comes with idealising a past which bares little resemblance to the reality (as much as we can tell it) those gone before have lived.
To be frank, I like the accessible language the author used to write the book. There is no pretension in how he makes his arguments, which I can appreciate.
I do however have issues with the structure of the book. I found the chapters somewhat misleading in their titles. Each seem set up to discuss a certain historical myth, and yet only a small fraction of those chapters actually discuss what is stated that they are there for. I am aware that the author doesn’t owe me anything and my annoyance with this may be down to my Autism. But my experience in debating taught me the value of getting to the point. But in fairness some of the stories and arguments laid down by the author in those chapters were entertaining and informative. His discussion about food and language was absolutely fascinating and taught me a lot.
I did find this book entertaining and informative. But I had two main problems with it. Firstly, I think the author is just a little too open in using the book to display his political opinions. Would I be saying this if I didn’t agree with all of them? Well, that is a speculative question. But I would say that I was more annoyed with it interrupting the flow of historical discussion.
Secondly, I get the main message of his book. Fake History and the promotion of it is dangerous and serves certain agendas. I also agree that statues are political statements. Frankly, Edward Colston and his tasteless statues can go to hell. They should be constantly debated and challenged. History isn’t concrete. We find out more pieces of it’s puzzle and it evolves.
History evolving though is what I thought was the point that the author could have expanded on more. Fake History can be exclusionary but learning history can be inclusive, hopeful and frankly very cool. Yes, the truth being uncovered will undoubtedly shatter many epic stories which were long embellished about people who have become famous. But the great missing link is getting people connected to the history that is most linked and is relatable to them. Not how the ruling classes lived and made the country, but how the rest of us have.
Otto English contends that our history has been crafted to suit a great power narrative. This is meant to push us to stay the “chosen” and “exceptional” people that many right wing politicians would portray us as. OK, I will level with him that we are not as exceptional as they say we are. But our story is nonetheless interesting and there are definitely stories of discovery, bravery, innovation and compassion in there. And frankly I do think some of it is exceptional and we shouldn’t be embarrassed to say so. Some of it, the true parts of it, could even be inspiring for the right reasons. I think it is sad that the author doesn’t seem to consider this. The Black Lives Matter movement has arguably given a shot in the arm to minorities ignored by history to reclaim it. The LGBTQ+ community is having a similar moment. Ordinary people working to liberate their own history and save it is inspiring. But there was no mention of it. Give us some hope man!
I felt that this book didn’t quite meet my expectations, but I still got much out of it. To that extent I will give the sequel “Fake Heroes” a go. Not in the least that, to my regret, I was once a Che Guevara fanboy. Much has changed since then.
A conservative friend once said to me that standing in the H.M.S Victory gave him a sense of us being a part of a grand story. I agreed with him on one level that it is indeed a grand story. But it is one of redemption. Thankfully such stories are my favourite.
The premise of this book is to explore and debunk ten great history myths which are frequently passed off as truth. The author sets his case straight away. Fake History is based on lies which are used to push agendas today. This often comes with idealising a past which bares little resemblance to the reality (as much as we can tell it) those gone before have lived.
To be frank, I like the accessible language the author used to write the book. There is no pretension in how he makes his arguments, which I can appreciate.
I do however have issues with the structure of the book. I found the chapters somewhat misleading in their titles. Each seem set up to discuss a certain historical myth, and yet only a small fraction of those chapters actually discuss what is stated that they are there for. I am aware that the author doesn’t owe me anything and my annoyance with this may be down to my Autism. But my experience in debating taught me the value of getting to the point. But in fairness some of the stories and arguments laid down by the author in those chapters were entertaining and informative. His discussion about food and language was absolutely fascinating and taught me a lot.
I did find this book entertaining and informative. But I had two main problems with it. Firstly, I think the author is just a little too open in using the book to display his political opinions. Would I be saying this if I didn’t agree with all of them? Well, that is a speculative question. But I would say that I was more annoyed with it interrupting the flow of historical discussion.
Secondly, I get the main message of his book. Fake History and the promotion of it is dangerous and serves certain agendas. I also agree that statues are political statements. Frankly, Edward Colston and his tasteless statues can go to hell. They should be constantly debated and challenged. History isn’t concrete. We find out more pieces of it’s puzzle and it evolves.
History evolving though is what I thought was the point that the author could have expanded on more. Fake History can be exclusionary but learning history can be inclusive, hopeful and frankly very cool. Yes, the truth being uncovered will undoubtedly shatter many epic stories which were long embellished about people who have become famous. But the great missing link is getting people connected to the history that is most linked and is relatable to them. Not how the ruling classes lived and made the country, but how the rest of us have.
Otto English contends that our history has been crafted to suit a great power narrative. This is meant to push us to stay the “chosen” and “exceptional” people that many right wing politicians would portray us as. OK, I will level with him that we are not as exceptional as they say we are. But our story is nonetheless interesting and there are definitely stories of discovery, bravery, innovation and compassion in there. And frankly I do think some of it is exceptional and we shouldn’t be embarrassed to say so. Some of it, the true parts of it, could even be inspiring for the right reasons. I think it is sad that the author doesn’t seem to consider this. The Black Lives Matter movement has arguably given a shot in the arm to minorities ignored by history to reclaim it. The LGBTQ+ community is having a similar moment. Ordinary people working to liberate their own history and save it is inspiring. But there was no mention of it. Give us some hope man!
I felt that this book didn’t quite meet my expectations, but I still got much out of it. To that extent I will give the sequel “Fake Heroes” a go. Not in the least that, to my regret, I was once a Che Guevara fanboy. Much has changed since then.
A conservative friend once said to me that standing in the H.M.S Victory gave him a sense of us being a part of a grand story. I agreed with him on one level that it is indeed a grand story. But it is one of redemption. Thankfully such stories are my favourite.
October 1, 2021
Otto English (I will point out that this is a fake name, but it isn't intended to deceive and Otto English doesn't hide his real identity - it's in his Twitter bio, for goodness sake - and he has explained this several times) wrote this book not just to correct some misapprehensions about "stuff we all think", but because this stuff matters. Histories are described, we adopt those histories as part of our national character, we make decisions based on who we are - if it all turns out to be nonsense, then our decisions are baseless.
It's all nonsense. I don't think that's a spoiler because I think that the word "Fake" in the title gives the game away a little. Our decisions, like Brexit, are not based on our national character but on our made up history.
The book is entertainingly written, well put together and the ten fake news stories (there are more than ten, by the way - there are ten themes rather than ten fake histories). A well put together book, and a definite recommendation from me.
It's all nonsense. I don't think that's a spoiler because I think that the word "Fake" in the title gives the game away a little. Our decisions, like Brexit, are not based on our national character but on our made up history.
The book is entertainingly written, well put together and the ten fake news stories (there are more than ten, by the way - there are ten themes rather than ten fake histories). A well put together book, and a definite recommendation from me.
January 16, 2022
Trigger Trigger Trigger book. Put me on edge. Some was super good, some Otto you went off on your own ramble and I couldn't follow. Chapter titles were rubbish in correspondence to the subject matter in that chapter. There were some areas that captured me, the war and how it is still glorified, brainwashing kids history, Churchill. Some however just waffled on, about the crown, Napoleon, chapter 10, conclusion didn't conclude just went on a tangent.
I got out of this what I wanted, but less than expected.
I got out of this what I wanted, but less than expected.
October 24, 2022
I can certainly understand why some readers loved this book, but I am not among them. I like to read serious history. This book was history-lite (in my opinion).
August 3, 2024
There are some interesting anecdotes in this book that, throughout our lives, we have been made to believe that it is true history. It highlights how the people will latch onto narratives that supports their confirmation bias, but how much of that is actually true?
Particularly interesting are the propaganda machines that rulers, politicians and dictators apply to the masses to whip up
support (and often hatred of the ‘other’). Think Hitler, Enoch Powell and, in today’s times, Trump and Farage.
The overarching message is to question everything, ‘Is that true?’, Did that really happen?’ and ‘Who benefits?’ (Otto English).
Particularly interesting are the propaganda machines that rulers, politicians and dictators apply to the masses to whip up
support (and often hatred of the ‘other’). Think Hitler, Enoch Powell and, in today’s times, Trump and Farage.
The overarching message is to question everything, ‘Is that true?’, Did that really happen?’ and ‘Who benefits?’ (Otto English).
May 18, 2023
Was the whole structure perhaps a bit odd? Yes. I mean, none of the chapters deals exclusively with the "great lie" the chapter is named for. They are all a starting point for a more general discussion of propaganda, deliberate misremembering, nationalism etc. But still, some of the chapters (like the one about Churchill) go into much more depth than others ("If Napoleon had won, we'd all be speaking French" gets about three sentences).
Still, it's an interesting fun read.
Still, it's an interesting fun read.
August 22, 2022
History books are usually informative, occasionally exciting but rarely funny. "Fake History" is all three - often it's laugh out loud funny, as my fellow passengers on the Aberystwyth to Birmingham train discovered yesterday. This is history written as it should be; researched, clear and - as mentioned - bloody hilarious in places.
Otto English uses 10 commonly held 'facts' and uses each to expose many commonly held beliefs that are in fact false. His greater narrative is a warning that "false news" is dangerous and he cites Trump and Brexit as examples.
In a time when truth is under attack and lazy idiots like Johnson, Rees-Mogg Farahe feed false narratives that seek to play on people's craving for nostalgia, this is an important book. A copy should be in every library and form part of every school history course.
And, again, it's often really funny.
Otto English uses 10 commonly held 'facts' and uses each to expose many commonly held beliefs that are in fact false. His greater narrative is a warning that "false news" is dangerous and he cites Trump and Brexit as examples.
In a time when truth is under attack and lazy idiots like Johnson, Rees-Mogg Farahe feed false narratives that seek to play on people's craving for nostalgia, this is an important book. A copy should be in every library and form part of every school history course.
And, again, it's often really funny.
March 16, 2022
I'm sorry but what is this? I did history at uni, and I struggle to describe it, If one had to, you could define it as a self-absorbed, incoherent polemic. Part of the detritus thrown up by Brexit.
The grandly described Prologue is funny, albeit unintentionally. Its like a cross between Monty Python, and a 14 year old trying to copy Orwell. Although his snobbish contempt for his grandparents would embarrass the adolescent Pip from Great Expectations. Where as Andrew Scot is a full grown man (hes writing this under a fake name by the way. Who knows why? Your guess is as good as mine).
Theres nothing here that someone who has finished secondary school would find new, revelationary, or even interesting. Supercilious doesn't begin to describe this man's nature. He pretends to recognize ordinary people's role in history, while simultaneously he plainly views most people in general, no doubt including the readership, as the drudge, the great uneducated unwashed masses. Well I'm sorry, but we're not.
The grandly described Prologue is funny, albeit unintentionally. Its like a cross between Monty Python, and a 14 year old trying to copy Orwell. Although his snobbish contempt for his grandparents would embarrass the adolescent Pip from Great Expectations. Where as Andrew Scot is a full grown man (hes writing this under a fake name by the way. Who knows why? Your guess is as good as mine).
Theres nothing here that someone who has finished secondary school would find new, revelationary, or even interesting. Supercilious doesn't begin to describe this man's nature. He pretends to recognize ordinary people's role in history, while simultaneously he plainly views most people in general, no doubt including the readership, as the drudge, the great uneducated unwashed masses. Well I'm sorry, but we're not.
July 4, 2022
TLDR: the book is mostly just contrarianism without nuance or sophisticated argument.
This is probably one of the worst books I’ve ever read. This is a book about ‘Fake History’, about un-nuanced narratives we’re brought up believing that do not actually fit with the facts. English declares his mission to be introducing nuance and moving past the Great Men of history, reintroducing the average person, the ‘pawns of history’, back into the narrative.
The whole thing has a very condescending vibe. English is here to tell you that many stories you thought you knew were bullshit. Usually this consists of telling you a story in detail before being told it’s not true, which maybe is not the best way of presenting things. English will then tell you that people choose to believe it because they like comforting history, they like the narratives they know, but of course, he knows better. This is fine when what he’s doing is indeed tackling myths, like debunking a particular Churchill anecdote. But whenever it gets into actual interpretation things fall apart.
English’s idea of nuance seems to be ‘an un-nuanced narrative that contradicts a more popular un-nuanced narrative. His chapter on nationalist victimhood narratives basically consists of looking at an atrocity or a major defeat and declaring that the losers weren’t angels themselves. The people who disagree with his narrative do so because they’ve been duped. There’s no place for historiography- there’s simply the pleasant lie everyone knows, and the real story that English is here to reveal (It’s worth noting, on that point, that there are no references and only a three-page bibliography). The whole basis of the thing is simple contrarianism, which leaves him contradicting himself. Some politicians are mocked for making historical apologies, while others are condemned for not making them. Sometimes people are condemned for making fun of autocracies rather than acknowledging the suffering, sometimes autocracies aren’t as bad as we think. (Autocracy is a subject he’s particularly bad on; we can’t condemn Napoleon’s autocracy because contemporary Britain did not have real democracy, and towards the end there’s a horrendously awful comparison of North Korea’s Kim dynasty and the British royal family which is painfully stupid).
This all leaves us with a book that has few actual arguments to make. ‘Some people believe lies because they were brought up on them and they’re comforting’ is about all the sophistication you’re going to get. Chapters on nationalism are the most obviously flawed, with a classic misunderstanding of Benedict Anderson and clearly no real knowledge of studies of nationalism. As a person with a particular interest in 19th century Europe I was very surprised to see that ‘the idea of nation states suited monarchs’!
This book is also highly partisan, which would be fine if he could back that up. I don’t disagree with English’s political viewpoints that pop up in the book, but those viewpoints are thrown in hamfistedly and really stupidly. If you can’t mention Thucydides without a Brexit aside, and more importantly can’t provide any actual substance in your analysis of Trump supporters, what’s the point?
So in the end we have a 300-page Twitter thread, telling you that the other guys are wrong and going into some pop psychology that frankly anyone could’ve written to say why, contradicting itself in its endless effort to contradict everyone, and never quite managing any meaningful arguments.
As an alternative popular history about how authorities /politicians etc try to enshrine particular readings of history into public discourse, try Alex Von Tunzelmann’s ‘Fallen Idols’, which shares some ideas with this book while being written by someone who actually knows what they’re talking about and has a point to make.
This is probably one of the worst books I’ve ever read. This is a book about ‘Fake History’, about un-nuanced narratives we’re brought up believing that do not actually fit with the facts. English declares his mission to be introducing nuance and moving past the Great Men of history, reintroducing the average person, the ‘pawns of history’, back into the narrative.
The whole thing has a very condescending vibe. English is here to tell you that many stories you thought you knew were bullshit. Usually this consists of telling you a story in detail before being told it’s not true, which maybe is not the best way of presenting things. English will then tell you that people choose to believe it because they like comforting history, they like the narratives they know, but of course, he knows better. This is fine when what he’s doing is indeed tackling myths, like debunking a particular Churchill anecdote. But whenever it gets into actual interpretation things fall apart.
English’s idea of nuance seems to be ‘an un-nuanced narrative that contradicts a more popular un-nuanced narrative. His chapter on nationalist victimhood narratives basically consists of looking at an atrocity or a major defeat and declaring that the losers weren’t angels themselves. The people who disagree with his narrative do so because they’ve been duped. There’s no place for historiography- there’s simply the pleasant lie everyone knows, and the real story that English is here to reveal (It’s worth noting, on that point, that there are no references and only a three-page bibliography). The whole basis of the thing is simple contrarianism, which leaves him contradicting himself. Some politicians are mocked for making historical apologies, while others are condemned for not making them. Sometimes people are condemned for making fun of autocracies rather than acknowledging the suffering, sometimes autocracies aren’t as bad as we think. (Autocracy is a subject he’s particularly bad on; we can’t condemn Napoleon’s autocracy because contemporary Britain did not have real democracy, and towards the end there’s a horrendously awful comparison of North Korea’s Kim dynasty and the British royal family which is painfully stupid).
This all leaves us with a book that has few actual arguments to make. ‘Some people believe lies because they were brought up on them and they’re comforting’ is about all the sophistication you’re going to get. Chapters on nationalism are the most obviously flawed, with a classic misunderstanding of Benedict Anderson and clearly no real knowledge of studies of nationalism. As a person with a particular interest in 19th century Europe I was very surprised to see that ‘the idea of nation states suited monarchs’!
This book is also highly partisan, which would be fine if he could back that up. I don’t disagree with English’s political viewpoints that pop up in the book, but those viewpoints are thrown in hamfistedly and really stupidly. If you can’t mention Thucydides without a Brexit aside, and more importantly can’t provide any actual substance in your analysis of Trump supporters, what’s the point?
So in the end we have a 300-page Twitter thread, telling you that the other guys are wrong and going into some pop psychology that frankly anyone could’ve written to say why, contradicting itself in its endless effort to contradict everyone, and never quite managing any meaningful arguments.
As an alternative popular history about how authorities /politicians etc try to enshrine particular readings of history into public discourse, try Alex Von Tunzelmann’s ‘Fallen Idols’, which shares some ideas with this book while being written by someone who actually knows what they’re talking about and has a point to make.
June 3, 2024
Frustratingly under-referenced and lacking in nuance, particularly for a book that lambasts others for exactly these reasons.
It’s essentially a huge list of trivia written in sentences rather than bullet points, which is fine, but the marketing presents it as a compelling revisionist work.
It’s hard to disagree with many of the points made, they’re not particularly profound or original, but the difficulty is searching beyond the tangential ramblings to find them.
This book is for someone who likes facts but isn’t necessarily interested in history. I’d be more forgiving if the author didn’t chastise the discipline at every opportunity and speak from a presumed position of unique clarity, even if I agree with the sentiment behind most of his criticisms. It’s a low standard of history writing, which is unacceptable for a book ruthlessly critical of others. Mais j’ai étudié l'histoire à l'université, so maybe the book wasn’t for me.
It’s essentially a huge list of trivia written in sentences rather than bullet points, which is fine, but the marketing presents it as a compelling revisionist work.
It’s hard to disagree with many of the points made, they’re not particularly profound or original, but the difficulty is searching beyond the tangential ramblings to find them.
This book is for someone who likes facts but isn’t necessarily interested in history. I’d be more forgiving if the author didn’t chastise the discipline at every opportunity and speak from a presumed position of unique clarity, even if I agree with the sentiment behind most of his criticisms. It’s a low standard of history writing, which is unacceptable for a book ruthlessly critical of others. Mais j’ai étudié l'histoire à l'université, so maybe the book wasn’t for me.
August 15, 2021
I liked some of the chapters. The Churchill chapter and the Britain in WW2 chapter were interesting and made me think.
Unfortunately, most of the other chapters are lacking focus and Otto English has a habit of moving from one idea to the next without properly exploring it. Sometimes I wasn't even sure what his point or argument was.
I don't understand who the target audience is. Some famous events in history are outlined in two to three pages, in other places, a lot of knowledge is assumed. The references to popular culture are hit and miss. Large groups of people are often dismissed in a very clumsy and blunt manner. This line in particular, which attempts to explain why people voted for Brexit, made me cringe: "For many modern English people, the lost, lamented Eden is the eternal summer of Edwardian England." Really?
It was easy to read and wasn't overly pretentious. A few lines gave me a smile. That earns 1 star. The second star is for the 2 chapters I mentioned at the start of the review. Otherwise, this book is completely forgettable. Just some old, white dude's random observations, that can make you smile, cringe, roll your eyes, and occasionally, nod in agreement.
Unfortunately, most of the other chapters are lacking focus and Otto English has a habit of moving from one idea to the next without properly exploring it. Sometimes I wasn't even sure what his point or argument was.
I don't understand who the target audience is. Some famous events in history are outlined in two to three pages, in other places, a lot of knowledge is assumed. The references to popular culture are hit and miss. Large groups of people are often dismissed in a very clumsy and blunt manner. This line in particular, which attempts to explain why people voted for Brexit, made me cringe: "For many modern English people, the lost, lamented Eden is the eternal summer of Edwardian England." Really?
It was easy to read and wasn't overly pretentious. A few lines gave me a smile. That earns 1 star. The second star is for the 2 chapters I mentioned at the start of the review. Otherwise, this book is completely forgettable. Just some old, white dude's random observations, that can make you smile, cringe, roll your eyes, and occasionally, nod in agreement.
November 10, 2024
Personal notes, not a review
Mixed feelings about the book. I appreciate the overall principle the author was making, but at times I felt he went into 'personal vendetta' language, and over-played the whole 'fake news' lens.
Felt like a points scoring approach, and in my opinion, has some obvious grudges in the way certain parts of history and in particular, specific historical figures are portrayed in very black and white terms, rather than a more balanced, lifetime broad view of their contributions (Churchill/Lincoln in particular)
Mixed feelings about the book. I appreciate the overall principle the author was making, but at times I felt he went into 'personal vendetta' language, and over-played the whole 'fake news' lens.
Felt like a points scoring approach, and in my opinion, has some obvious grudges in the way certain parts of history and in particular, specific historical figures are portrayed in very black and white terms, rather than a more balanced, lifetime broad view of their contributions (Churchill/Lincoln in particular)
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
October 23, 2023
Quite an interesting book from a rather different perspective than the one I usually see in the movies and the one that I was taught in school.
I’m giving it three stars because I can’t give it 3.5. Too many slips from the author in the current state of politics and his views regarding that. While I agree with some of the points that he made even on this front, not what I expected in a book talking mainly about history and its influence.
I’m giving it three stars because I can’t give it 3.5. Too many slips from the author in the current state of politics and his views regarding that. While I agree with some of the points that he made even on this front, not what I expected in a book talking mainly about history and its influence.
August 19, 2022
A good read with some interesting facts, but as the book develops, English gets a bit ranty: he is cross with Brexit, with Trump, with the current status of social democracy. These are all good things to be cross about but it changed the book from a look at the myths of history and how they are used to more of a personal complaint.
January 21, 2024
Mildly interesting regarding certain areas of history but a bit rambly and doesn’t go into detail on many things. It’s a good surface level read but probably pretty frustrating for actual historians. You’ll be able to find much better books about each chapter’s subject matter elsewhere, but if you do just want a light summary with some centrist dad political commentary, this'll be for you.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 229 reviews