It has been accepted fact for centuries that Syphilis came to Europe on Columbus’s ships. It seems it’s likely more complicated.
I was always taught that the Battle of New Orleans was an American victory but it happened after the war was over. I don’t think that was ever hidden.
Not just European. But it was understandable. There was a fad for a fake sewn-together “exotic creatures” like “real mermaids” and so on at the time, and the platypus is genuinely really bizarre. An egg-laying mammal that shoots venom and has a beak, riiiight. Try again, Barnum.
I think it had more to do with Jefferson’s personality than it did with him being gay. But it seems odd to refer to a man who when younger was macking on his neighbors wife, fathered a few children with his own wife, and likely fathered some children with his slave mistress. There are some historical figures who are so associated with a nation, people, or cause that to criticize one is to criticize the other. To criticize Thomas Jefferson in the early 20th century was to criticize America. (My professor once threw a question at us that would lead to us criticizing Martin Luther King, Jr. and it was a rather uncomfortable moment. To criticize King was the criticize the Civil Rights movement. Of course, nobody should be above legitimate criticisms.)
Every time I was told about the Battle of New Orleans it was mentioned that it was after the treaty was signed. I don’t remember a time when I didn’t know that.
As to whether it was an American victory? That’s complicated of course. I don’t know at what point I learned how complicated.
Both my junior high school history teacher and my high school AP history teacher taught the war accurately and not as an American victory, but with the final battle after the treaty was signed.
Standard US teaching is that that the War of 1812 was a draw. I believe this was mainly because the final treaty had the status of everything revert to the pre-war state. Neither side gained or lost anything.
How is that bullshit history that turned out to be true though?
Canadians popularly believe that they burned down the White House as well, the entire war is filled with really bizarre super nationalist interpretations. But that’s not Bullshit History that Turned Out to Be True. It would only count if everyone at the time thought we lost, that all got buried until the 1990’s then some historian opened up a cupboard and found the Real Truth to the war.
Every time I’ve had personal knowledge on a subject he’s talked about he’s had serious factual issues with his reporting. Since this is the case I have to assume that it is also true about the subjects that I don’t have personal knowledge about.
Can you give any examples? I am not disputing your finding, just that channels like Today I Found Out are still pretty much in my trustworthy list*, so I’d definitely want to know if they got something horribly wrong.
* This doesn’t imply I would believe everything they say. Just that I assume they’ve done a basic amount of research and don’t repeat myths without at least trying to find a good source.
Please do say which one. You can use a spoiler box, so other people won’t see it unless they want to. I think I’ve read all the Black Widowers stories, and I don’t recall this. There was a story where someone owned a meteoric rock, but that was the set up, not the dénouement, and the mystery didn’t involve disputing the extraterrestrial origin.
The Obvious Factor
Great post/username combo!
I was definitely taught that we (the US) were undefeated until Vietnam. I think I learned that Korea was a tie and the rest were wins.
I’m not sure what the bullshit history about the War of 1812 “that turned out to be true” has to do with that, though.
Some eyewitnesses reported that, before it sank, the Titanic fractured in half. There was even a sketch depicting this. Nevertheless, others did not report it (possibly because the electrical system had failed, and the lights went out). For years it was taken as a given that the Titanic had gone down intact, which is how Clive Cussler could get away with writing a novel called Raise the Titanic (Not to mention Arthur C. Clarke in the chapter “The Ghost from the Grand Banks” in his 1975 novel Imperial Earth – in the 1990 novel of the same name he acknowledged that it had broken in two.)
Of course, they found the Titanic in 1985, in two big pieces, and that put an end to that – the ship definitely did break up. Then Cameron made his 1997 movie depicting the breakup (after years of movies in which the titanic went down – and one, 1980’s Raise the Titanic, based on Cussler’s novel – in one piece, and now it’s not only common knowledge, but I’ll bet most people don’t even realize that there was misinformation about it.
Another bit of misinformation was that it was predicted that the Titanic would be found in almost pristine shape because of the preservative nature of the cold waters of the deep Atlantic (which was one reason people had written about being able to raise the ship intact). The reality was that the ship had deteriorated rather significantly – besides being broken in two. The metal had formed “rusticles” that appeared to drip from the surfaces, like icicles from the rain. Not one source I know of had predicted that. And not one news story that I recall pointed out that no one had predicted it.
One of Cussler’s last novels was The Titanic Secret in 2019, featuring one of his other heroes, Isaac Bell. It tells about events leading up to the stowing of the cargo of ore on board the Titanic that motivated his hero Dirk Pitt to go looking for it. Since it’s in the same continuity, one presumes that the ship didn’t break up, so Pitt could raise it. Cussler gets around the difference between his fiction and real life by simply not mentioning the breakup. Of course, in Cussler’s imagined reality the Lincoln Memorial has been blown up, Lincoln died in the Sahara, Napoleon is buried in a submarine, and Columbus in a Central American tomb, so this isn’t that much of a stretch, comparatively.
The “feminine” bit may have even been a way of saying he was too refined or sensitive for so crude an assertion of “manly” power as keeping a black slave mistress. Which is still grasping at straws and reveals how people of that time viewed what was the worst possible accusation (with for sure an element of claiming “But he was one of the good slaveowners!”).
When I was in school in the 80s and 90s, what was taught in history classes was that (in chronological order) the War of 1812 was basically a draw, we won the Battle of New Orleans, and our drawing in the war as a whole and victory in the battle after it ended was beneficial to the US, as it signaled to the world that we were to be taken seriously.
Now, I’ve also heard people claim that the Vietnam War was a draw, and that the US has outright won every other war we’ve been in, including Korea and 1812. But the people who claim that don’t agree with what’s taught in history courses, and I imagine most of that sort of people still claim the same thing.
Indeed, it’s not the one with the meteoric rock. I don’t have my copy of a Black Widowers within reach now, but I’m pretty sure it is The Obvious Factor
That’s the one where the story about a supposed case of psychic prediction kept getting better and better as more dramatic elements were added, because the guy telling the story was lying