The Trouble With Reading History
The most commonly read history books are lying to you
Reading history kind of sucks. The books are often long, boring, and filled with too many names to remember. Also, for every history book, there are six looking to debunk it or proclaim that it’s racist history or something. So, why would anyone exert the time and energy necessary to read enough books to feel comfortable talking about it, while avoiding the Dunning-Kreuger effect? Now, I’m obviously exaggerating as this is exactly what I have tried to do with this project and I don’t find history boring. But, I was struck again with a problem I see with education, history, or otherwise, as I was reading the open letter to my home school district for my last essay. Most people I know don’t read many books and the data seem to bear this out. Now, I think this is a problem, generally, as reading is hugely important to one’s overall well-being, mentally and socially.
Many people stop reading after high school, likely after being forced to read Great Expectations or Moby Dick1. Life tends to take over as well. Unless reading is part of your major in college then it probably takes a back-burner. The same is true if you go straight into the workforce. It only becomes harder with relationships and children. I have found this out, personally. If I don’t prioritize reading, even if just for a few minutes a day, then I will not read. So, I don’t fault anyone who doesn’t read much after leaving high school and gaining responsibilities. What I find troubling though, is the insistence that high school is the end of learning.
“When am I ever gonna use this?”
“Why didn’t I learn this in high school?”
These questions resonate in my brain like a hammer on an anvil piercing through the smoky cloud of my thoughts. The open letter I referenced asked a more pointed version of the latter: why did we not learn about racism in America in high school? That is the question I have been seeking an answer to. Well, first I am determining whether the question is even valid. Regardless, it begs a further question: even if you had learned about history the way you wanted to, would you remember it? Learning doesn’t need to end when you leave high school. So, the complaint about not learning something by the time one turns eighteen2 ignores the fact that learning is supposed to continue after that. It is never supposed to end.
The learning done does not need to be academic in nature. To be honest, it is incredibly difficult, as I stated above, to find the time to learn on your own after high school. So learning skills naturally via hobbies, or work, is usually the best way to go. But, if you’re up to the task, lectures, podcasts, books, and articles are all available to learn about almost anything under the Sun. As I have said, learning about history and documenting it is a hobby for me. I enjoy reading about history and it gives me a break from thinking about my engineering career. However, as I have read more and more, I am realizing why people have this idea about learning history. More specifically, learning history in high school. There is a problem with how history is written about and the books that are most often read.
I mentioned in the introductory episode to Missing Pages that I have chosen to use a single book as the main reference for each episode. I also stated that I was doing this to save time and hoped that despite singular sources, bias would be balanced out. Now, I have stuck to that for the most part, though I have added some supplementary sources. But as I plan the episodes, pick sources, and prepare notes, I have found this to be a bit harder than expected, especially for some subjects that are not as well covered. I am not trying to uncover new ground or find the information that is suppressed by them, so I have begun to use historical survey books as a baseline, like Alan Taylor’s American Colonies. These are invaluable in finding sources. But something I have noticed when picking sources is how old so many of them are. At first, I thought that would be a problem. Getting the latest and greatest information is key to disseminating the correct information, right?
However, the more I have thought about it, the less convinced by this I have become. Newness does not prove value. For instance, look at the work of Nicole Hannah Jones in her 1619 Project. This piece of journalism was meant to unfurl previously held narratives of the founding of America and lay bare the truth. Unfortunately for her, but fortunately for the rest of us, historians were able to debunk many of the claims she made with evidence. That did not stop Jones from spreading her work, and her conclusions therein, far and wide, despite edits introducing contradictory evidence. This is not limited to journalists dealing in history. Even trained historians can, and do, let their ideological “truths" get in the way of the actual truth. The key quote of the article linked, to me, is:
Adapting this gripping storytelling approach, Barton and Zinn offer audiences the illusion that they have been hoodwinked by undisclosed authorities -- Ivy League academics, textbook authors, the New York Times, eighth-grade social studies teachers, parents. They give readers the intellectual self-assurance that accompanies expertise without the slog of unglamorous study required to attain it.
The many failures over the past few years, which seem to be continuing, of many institutions and authorities have only exacerbated the call for writers like this. The rise of shows like Breaking Points, the presidential campaign of RFK Jr. and Vivek Ramaswamy, and the myriad writers here on Substack show the growing call for bucking mainstream narratives. I’m all for more voices being heard, not less. Censorship and hiding damaging information is the antithesis of an open, liberal society. The suppression of stories for ideological reasons has led to untold suffering going uncovered. So it is vitally important to let the truth come to the fore and challenge existing notions. But, on the flip side, it is important to make sure you’re not so open-minded that your brain falls out3.
I mentioned this in my essay On Narrative Building, but it deserves repeating. Official narratives are not automatically incorrect and discrediting them without evaluating the facts of the matter is just as fallacious as believing them outright. I have seen this impulse growing, especially in the heterodox community. This community (if you can call it a single community) is based on the idea that they have ideas that don’t fall within the normal Conservative-Liberal or Republican-Democrat dichotomy. I see myself falling into this group, for the most part, but I am also concerned that this can lead to insular thinking. The call for dismantling the Deep State or complaining about both sides is not necessarily undermining the dichotomy, just creating a new one — the elites versus the free thinkers.
When I originally began looking for books to read for my podcast, I just used the history section of Amazon to find the books I wanted to use. If you go to the history book section of Amazon and look at the best sellers you will see many examples of this challenge to consensus. In 2023 alone, there is Black AF History: The Un-Whitewashed Story of America, The Rediscovery of America: Native Peoples and the Unmaking of U.S. History, and When Crack Was King: A People's History of a Misunderstood Era. The titles of these books prey on that impulse to be part of some elite club that isn’t falling for the mainstream narratives. Now, I understand that the whole point of my podcast is to uncover the history that was missed in my high school history class. The irony of me complaining about this is not lost on me. An earlier version of this podcast, with an earlier version of me hosting it, would have likely picked each of these up when the time came to find what is being hidden from us.
But the truth is, these books aren’t being sold for the in-depth history. They are selling a story. A feeling. That is why they are at the top of the history book list. This is not true of all of them. The story being told by most is not also an attempt to subvert everything you know. Rather, the narrative structure comes naturally from the events unfolding, as in The Wager: A Tale of Shipwreck, Mutiny and Murder. I have no problems with these books existing, as long as the facts are correct. They make reading history fun which is inherently difficult. The second half of the quote above is undoubtedly true, in my experience so far, though I would never call myself an expert. History is boring and it takes good writers to make it exciting if the drama is not inherent in the events covered.
As I have expanded my reading list to fill out season 1 and start notes for season 2 of my podcast, I have found that the topics that I have found lacking are the boring ones. I’ll admit it. The creation of Carolina or Maryland is not as exciting as the Starving Time in Virginia or the trial of Anne Hutchinson. But, I made it my job (well hobby, I’m not getting paid for this) to read this boring stuff. Because it can be a slog, and I’m not a historian, I don’t want to go through a dozen research papers to find the information I am looking for. The problem is there is usually only one work that captures all of the information I need. As we have seen above, single sources can be woefully inadequate for finding accurate information. Even if they are accurate, the information may be biased.
Is there anything that can be done? Writers are inherently biased. They can attempt with all their might to be objective, but the facts that seem vital to them may be useless to others. But perhaps all that can be asked for is honest attempts. Some writers, like Howard Zinn, Nicole Hannah Jones, and perhaps the authors of the books listed above, are subjective in their works on purpose. They have an ideology they are trying to portray through historical events. To me, this is corrosive regardless of the ideology. The author could be anything from a Christian theocrat to a libertarian to a social democrat to a Maoist. If ideology drives their work then they are undoubtedly leaving facts on the cutting room floor.
So, how do I counteract this? Well, so far I have taken a volumetric approach. I believe that if I simply read enough different authors discussing the same topic then I will arrive at a close enough approximation of the truth to feel comfortable. I have mostly avoided the “untold history” style books as I want to uncover that which is missing on my own. Perhaps in the future, I will try a new approach. Maybe I read those books and verify that their sources are accurate. Perhaps I go even further read opposing views and check the sources of their most contradictory claims. This might have to be my full-time job before I do the latter, but the former is intriguing. In the meantime, I hope that by producing this podcast and keeping it open to the public even more varied voices will join the fray, correct my mistakes, and add sources to my ever-growing pile.
I have not read either of these, but I have heard they are great works of literature. I would probably enjoy them tremendously, but I doubt I would have at 16.
Let me be clear, this is not to be confused with the idea that high school education has been failing students for a long time. That is a different argument, which I largely agree with, that is beyond the scope of this essay. I have touched on that in the past and will likely cover that many times over in the future. I am merely stating that directed learning ends after high school (or college) but learning, as a whole, should not,