"A day that will live in infamy..."

**Lew** · December 28th, 2007, 06:05 PM

No question, GL. And of course, there's "good" history and "bad" history, and the difference lies in the thoroughness and accuracy of the evidence. Your thoughts on Napoleon would carry more weight than mine by virtue of the fact that you know so much more about him than I do (and what little I do know is from what I've read of your postings here [img]wink.gif[/img] ) And one thing to look out for with authors on the book-tours....if you're writing a book about something that hasn't been written about, that's one thing. But if you're writing about, say, Lincoln, or Vietnam, or anything else that has been the subject of countless writings...you've got to make your book stand-out somehow. You've got to come up with some hook to attract the potential reader. And often times, that "hook" tends to consist of some outrageous comment intended to create controversy.

Quick example- I have a book called "Titanic Conspiracy." It's "hook" was that the OLYMPIC and the TITANIC may have been switched as part of an insurance scam by White Star (they were sister ships). Sounds ludicrous, but I bit and purchased the book anyway.

Turns out it was a pretty good book. And surprisingly, well-researched. And it didn't even touch the "conspiracy" theory until the end, and even then its ultimate conclusion was that the conspiracy theory was bogus. Basically, the authors were "debunking" this theory. But, on the outside of the book, it gives you the impression that they're aruging for the theory. I felt somewhat misled, but on the other hand, I'll take accuracy over woo any day of the week.

**Beachcomber** · December 28th, 2007, 06:31 PM

I didn't read the book, but I am aware of the Titanic conspiracy theory. The Olympic was severely damaged the year before and they wanted to collect the insurance money on it. But this would presuppose an entire disregard for their passengers, crew and most important: their reputation for safety. Lose $1.00 to save a nickle? That's what the misconstrued theory would amount to. In fact, the Titanic sinking so damaged the company they never built the Britannic which was supposed to fill out their trio of super liners. Eventually Cunard bought out White Star, and the loss of the Titanic was really the death blow.

**Beachcomber** · December 28th, 2007, 06:33 PM

And the Olympic was sunk in shallow waters off Greece by the Germans in WWI when it was serving as a hospital ship. Nasty lot those Germans in wartime.

**Lew** · December 28th, 2007, 08:02 PM

Now how often do I get to enlighten GL? Rarely, so I'll relish the opportunity.... [img]wink.gif[/img]

It's the BRITTANIC that was sunk while serving as a hospital ship. The OLYMPIC actually had a career and was eventually scrapped. But it's true that no more vessels of the OLYMPIC class were ever built (I've read in some books that the 3rd ship was supposed to be called GIGANTIC, but was renamed the more patriotic-sounding BRITANNIC as war was becoming inevitable; but I've also read where that's crap, it was always supposed to be called BRITTANIC).

For the record, I liked Cameron's movie (well, I like Cameron; I think Terminator, T2, Aliens, and Abyss are four of the best Sci-Fi movies ever made). I know a lot of the hardcore TITANIC buffs got mad at the whole Jack/Rose thing, since they weren't real people.

But on the other hand, I was always a fan of the story of the TITANIC. And it's not like you're going to get millions of people to go watch a documentary about. And even though the main characters were made-up, the other characters were real and I thought he told the story fairly accurately (the suicide scene notwithstanding).

In my opinion, the story itself is a tragedy. 1,500 people died needlessly. But, what happened afterwards is just downright disgraceful. There were two government inquiries- one in the U.S, the other in Britain. With all due respect to Sean Pa, the Admiralty hearings were a joke. They more or less exonerated the one man who was most at fault (Captain Smith), and instead placed the blame on Captain Lord (of the CALIFORNIAN) for not coming to rescue the TITANIC passengers in time (I have less of a problem with O.J.'s jury).

**LanDroid** · December 29th, 2007, 05:32 PM

Heh, Paul O'Neill is a lot more talented than I realized!

I'm not so sure about the funeral for the "R" word. Seems like there should be some description for an alternate history that challenges basic notions of an event. You can't say there's only one history, because certain versions dominate. If absolute proof were discovered the Roosevelt was fully aware of the Pearl Harbor attack and let it happen or if detailed proof of Japanese negotiations to surrender prior to the A-bombs, I'd call that revisionist history. The reason is the vast majority of Americans would never accept those facts and the dominant story would continue to be told. As GL suggests, the victor suppresses revisionist history...

<font color="#0000FF" size="1">[ December 29, 2007 01:44 PM: Message edited by: LanDroid ]</font>

**Lew** · December 29th, 2007, 05:59 PM

Actually, that is a good point, Lan. GL has alluded to various archeological findings throughout history that may have been suppressed by the Catholic church because the contradicted history as set forth in the Bible.

And as you're using the "R" word, then I see your point. I guess my context was that history is never a proven set of facts in the first place (unlike math), and so I cringe when people scream "revisionist history" when what they're really complaining about is point to which you just alluded- learning things we don't want to learn.

I personally have no problem with that. You show me the smoking gun that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor and let it happen, I'll certainly have to go back and re-think my analysis of him.

Most subjects tend to be either more objective (math, science, geography, etc.) or more subjective (literature, reading, music). History heavily involves both- we have to uncover the facts, but then we have to interpret them. And there is the added complication of the fact that the victor gets to write it.

Except, of course, for the American Civil War, which is the only example I know of where the losing side actually wrote the history (LewMan ducks as Trav is about to throw a rock at his head [img]wink.gif[/img] )