The JFK assassination. I know “you had to be there” (I was born in 1975), but what strikes me so much about Kennedy is how little actual lasting legislation he brought into being. Ike ended the Korean War and gave us the interstate highway system. LBJ helped pass the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, Medicare, etc. etc.–way more influential than anything Kennedy did. Heck Nixon’s presidency, with its environmental legislation and the beginning of affirmative action, helped the liberal agenda more than Kennedy did.
I like that one. If you ask the average adult what was the significance of the Mayflower, they will reply that it was the first European settlement in the modern day United States or at least the first British one if they are a little more savvy. That is completely false.
-
St. Augustine, FL is the oldest continuously inhabited European settlement in the U.S. It was founded in 1585 so definitely no on that by a large margin.
-
What about the Plymouth colony being the first British settlement in the modern day U.S.? No again, there were several before that including the Roanoke Colony also established in 1585. Those colonists disappeared but there is strong evidence that they just joined a nearby Native American tribe when they couldn’t be resupplied in time and conditions got desperate.
-
Ok, what about the first permanent British settlement in modern day America? No joy there either. Jamestown, Virginia was the first of those founded in 1607. I should know. I am a direct descendant and still have the last name of two of the first settlers. I thought that was a great piece of personal trivia until I visited Jamestown a few months ago and found out that they didn’t just have to fight with the Native Americans that were in the area, they also had to contend with some nearby Spanish settlements because there were Spanish all over much of the U.S. around that time and long before.
-
What did the Mayflower Pilgrims do that was so noteworthy?
They landed in 1620 in an area far north of where they originally intended. They originally were headed to the Virginia area as well but they were running out of beer (low alcohol content beer served as drinking water on long voyages). They didn’t have the first Thanksgiving (Jamestown had one much earlier as did other colonies because harvest feasts are a common tradition).
Plymouth Rock is literally just a smallish boulder that could fit in the bed of a small pickup truck today. It is one of the most disappointing tourist attractions ever. The idea that it was some type of marker for a landing site didn’t come about until 1715.They didn’t even land at Plymouth first. The original landing was near the tip of Cape Cod where they stayed for a while until they realized it wasn’t an ideal spot for a colony so they sailed inland.
One big tip-off that the story doesn’t hold up is that they immediately met an English speaking Indian, Squanto, right after landing. Where did he come from? England of course where he once lived for years and then came back because trans-Atlantic trade had already been established.
The Pilgrims and Puritans were largely too separate groups as well despite popular belief. The Pilgrims were the original Mayflower arrivals and they weren’t Puritans as a general rule. Puritans came over is successive waves later. In short, everything that most people learned about the Mayflower in elementary school is wrong.
I don’t know much about the other colonies that you mentioned but one reason the Mayflower gets so much attention is because the Puritans were fleeing religious persecution (which makes it all the more ironic that they became one of the more dogmatic groups in the New World). Thus the narrative of the Puritans fits right in with the “land of the free” historical arc we’ve created for ourselves. The “Mayflower Compact” is also noteworthy. So while I agree that the Mayflower perhaps doesn’t deserve to be elevated so much above the other settlements I think that takes it out of “most overrated” range. 
The Magna Carta of 1215 flashed into my head when I saw the thread title. The power-sharing in England between monarch, nobility and commoners is a long interesting story with various ups and downs. The common law, adoption of English, justice-of-peace system, Parliament, revolutions of 1640 and 1688, etc. were all important parts of that story. Yet focus on just the Magna Carta (to the point where 1215 is most memorized date behind only 1492, 1066, 1776 and 1941) seems very misplaced.
(Disclaimer: IANA Historian and wonder whether historians would agree with me.)
Some of the other examples seem very wrong to me.
[ul][li] The Moon landings were one of the most singular and amazing technical feats in the history of mankind; they’ll be talked about for millenia.[/li][li] The Salem witch trials shed important light on human behavior and institutions. (And do look up INADMISSIBLE in Ambrose Bierce’s dictionary.)[/li][li] Since, again, IANA Historian, I won’t speculate on the course of the Civil Rights Movement without the Reverend King, though his stature and influence were huge. But in a list of all-time great oraters, King should appear very near the top of the list.[/li][/ul]
You need to review just how close we came to a nuclear exchange. At least one Soviet commander disobeyed orders to run the blockade.
As for my contribution, I would say the reign of Emperor Joshua Norton I Emperor Norton - Wikipedia is the most overrated historical event. From 1859 to 1880 he was the Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico from his capitol in San Francisco, California. It was indeed a golden age, but really overblown.
Not to pick on this one, but this thread is quickly derailing with things that people hardly ever talk about anyway. (Emperor Joshua Norton, The Relief of Mafeking, Lance Armstrong’s marriage, etc.)
How can you say something is overrated if no one ever talks about it?
Agreed. Such pivotal events shouldn’t be hand-waved away just because they could have happened to anyone, anywhere. Sure, it doesn’t matter whether the light bulb was invented by some guy from Menlo Park or some other guy from Newcastle-upon-Tyne. The invention itself was inarguably game-changing.
Aren’t we supposed to use spoiler boxes for works of fiction?
Sekigahara. Not that is was ever significant to a non-Japanese. It’s just mentioned too often in martial arts books.
I agree with the mention of Paul Revere’s ride and other trivia from the American Revolution. Yes, that revolution was a major event in world history and defining for the US, but I don’t see why I was taught about Molly Pitcher in school. One thing they didn’t teach me in school was that July 4th, 1776 wasn’t the day everybody signed the Declaration of Independence. The way I heard it (much) later, the 4th was the day they sent it to the printer.
Woodstock is another one, although it might serve later generations as a reminder to not be so gullible as to believe that you can change the world by indulging in a good time.
If anybody mentioned the Storming of the Bastille, I’m sorry but I missed it. I think it fits in as overrated as one of those triggering events that later take on a symbolic significance. The Bastille itself was symbolic of the abuses of the monarchy, which is why it became a target for the Paris mob. Still, there were only a few prisoners in there, and a motley crew at that.
Jack the Ripper, Lewis and Clark, Merrimack and Monitor, and most of the events sung in “We Didn’t Start the Fire”
In some ways, I would say “the 1960’s” have been overrated. There was plenty of important changes, but given the eventual development of the baby boomers, much of the ideals expressed by them in the 1960s have fallen by the wayside. So, Apollo was important, the Civil Rights Movement (really a creature born in the 40s and 50s) was important, but all the activism, protests, radicalism, and anger? None of that mattered, though we’ve been told repeatedly how much it did.
Live Aid too. The biggest critic of that at the time was SPIN Magazine.
Without going into great detail about the numerous US bases between the USSR and teh American mainland, the gross inadequacies of the Soviet nuclear arsenal and (again) the fact that the US had nukes in Greece and Turkey which where minutes flying time from the Soviet heartland and thus the equivalent of Cuban-based missiles, I think that I’ll stand by my point.
The USSR was going to back down even if a few of their ships went to the bottom of teh ocean. They had no choice as their government couldn’t have withstood a conflict with the US. Kennedy knew this and that’s why the whole affair was more smokescreen than substance.
I was surprised to learn that the Battle of the Little Bighorn was so small. It would probably take me longer to read the Wikipedia entry than it took for the “Last Stand” to run from start to finish. Estimates on Native American casualties range as low as 38, the 7th Cavalry suffered “16 officers and 242 troopers killed or died of wounds, 1 officer and 51 troopers wounded.”
The Big Bang.
Simpsons did it!
And a lot of the indigenous populations in the places he visited had (until they were killed) the opposite sentiment. :eek:
–G!
This is not to say the Age of Exploration and Colonization would never have happened without him. However, to paraphrase Old Ben Kenobi, a great many issues depend on your point of view.
You never hear about it because you didn’t grow up in the USSR. It was all the fanfare.
It was a big deal and studied afterwards by academics. But it was boooooooooring tedious crap.
I think this thread is conflating two different (both interesting things):
-events which are more present/represented in popular culture and the popular imagination than their actual historical import deserves
-events which are described or thought of as having greater historical import than they deserve
That is, lots of people know about The Titanic for various reasons (obviously including the movie), so it’s arguably far better known than it deserves to be given that it’s just one of bazillions of boats that have sunk over the course of history. On the other hand, I think most people think of it as “hey, an interesting and dramatic event happened” rather than “this boat sank and it was one of the most important historical events of the early 20th century”. And on the third hand, it might in fact be the case that simply viewing it as an in interesting and dramatic event is actually an overreaction in the other direction, and there WERE important historical consequences of the Titanic sinking, impacts it had on culture, yada yada yada.
… in 1969.
What is China putting a man on the moon actually going to prove other than they’re willing to spend a lot of money to do it? They’re not developing anything new at this point, and they’re repeating a feat accomplished 45 years ago by the US.
My vote is for the Battle of Gettysburg. Even if Lee had won, he’d have had to retreat soon after, and the Confederacy would have inexorably been crushed under the superior manpower and industrial might of the Union.
My alternate vote goes to the Battle of the Bulge. It was a total last gasp desperation offensive by the Germans in hope of doing what? Even if they’d made it to Antwerp and Brussels, it wouldn’t have done too much other than delay the inevitable by a little bit longer- Army Group Central had already collapsed in Russia earlier that autumn, the Russians were in Poland, and Budapest was under siege.
In my sociology courses on collective behavior (particularly protest actions and movements), this one is rarely even mentioned except in passing. It is noted as a protest action amongst a subject population which marked a the start of hostile (vandalism and physical harm) interactions between the rebels and their overlord. Specifically, it was a protest against taxation without representation: Those guys in England had been passing Acts and taxes and regulations that sapped the colonial economy; bypassing local merchants via the Tea Act was just the last irritating straw on the camel’s back.
I was rather amused when my sister noted to me that, hundreds of years after that legendary event, the US government was imposing its own taxes – income tax, sales tax, inheritance tax (a hot topic at the time). The point she missed was that it wasn’t about taxes but about representation. And, even though the House is woefully underproportioned* in terms of population, there still is some representation of the constituency in the local (this nation’s) government, as opposed to some figureheads in distant lands making decisions about a region when they have no knowledge of the context or conditions in the regions their decisions affect.
Actually, this one seems exceedingly relevant – and misunderstood – in our modern times. I would argue that this tale is grossly under-rated. The context was that the number, armaments, and training of the Minutemen were grossly insufficient to deal with the British weapons, training, and sheer numbers. The key, therefore was to have what little resources that were available positioned in strategic places and ready to deal with the invaders as soon as possible. The key, therefore, was not in having a lot of guns in a lot of hands, but in having the few trained people with guns available in the right place. And the key to that key was GAINING AND COMMUNICATING INFORMATION.
The signal could have been “six if by land, twelve if by sea” provided they could find enough lamps and arrange them to be individually countable from a distance. The signal could have been “Blue if by land, red if by sea” [three letters versus four letters] provided they could put a colored piece of glass in front of the signal lamps. One versus two lamps was a simple and concise system of communication with enough distinction where it mattered. Revere was already involved in monitoring British troop activities which had worked out various means of coded communication. Once the key information was obtained and ‘broadcast’ the message recipients, who knew the meaning of the signal, dashed out and told the Minutemen what the message was and, therefore, where they needed to concentrate their resources. The fact of the matter is that it wasn’t the first time Paul and his friends used their system to foil British efforts and it wouldn’t be the last. The famous Midnight Ride was simply an awesome example of the alert system working as it was designed to work (again) and having game-changing results.
This obviates the NRA argument that “We need unrestricted access to personal firearms (concealed on our bodies) just in case the government suddenly turns corrupt and wants to take away the constituents’ ability to fight off the trained military.” along with pointing to Mexico, the Ryukyu islands, and various other places where the populace was, in fact, subjugated by a lack of weaponry that could be used to fight an oppressor.
That argument fails to float because the ubiquitous presence of smartphones today can do exactly what the North Church steeple did with greater accuracy over greater distances with a broader yet more exclusive target audience. If and when (and these are extremely hypothetical) the government issues orders to start collecting firearms from citizens, someone connected to the situation will (intentionally or, more likely, unwittingly) tell someone else via tweet, Facebook post, SnapChat, WhatsApp, or whatever is popular and widespread at the moment. Moments later everyone on the planet will not only know “The oppressors are coming!” but they’ll have plenty of time to hide what they want and/or prepare for the arrival of ‘collectors’ and kill them on the spot. Furthermore, as Shodan and Mangetout and HoneyBadgerDC and many many others on this board (and others) will readily agree that firearms are but one of many ways to kill agents of oppression – and but one of many long- or middle-range devices suitable for a homicidal task. You don’t need guns, you need a communications system – and people use our modern and varied systems of communication (Internet, Telephone, CB Radio, Shortwave Radio, cell phone and your choice of a dozen carrier services, etcetera) for so much business that no government would dare hint at shutting it down – even China has difficulty censoring their Internet traffic. And since it’s impossible to separate the business signals from personal transmissions, it would be impossible to prevent users from warning each other about the activities of an oppressive force.
A good friend of mine was quick to point out that the American version of the History of the World tends to start the Hawaiian section in the early 1900’s, when Western interests were building up plantations and ministries there, and tends to stop paying attention to the islands shortly after they were admitted to the Union as a State. A relative noted that the Japanese section starts around 1886, when Cmdr Perry was dispatched to cross the Pacific on a trade mission. Obviously those places have a history which stretches back before the common era, but American History concerns itself only with the situation and events related to its own interests in the area.
It was my World History professor who pointed out that American History curricula tends to focus on (relatively) small points of minutiae instead of long story arcs and their morale lessons because, after all, it has only been an independent nation for about 200 years so there hasn’t been much of a long consistent story arc to dwell on. And, he noted, when your curricula is supposed to inspire citizenship (if not full patriotism) then it’s convenient to be able to say “Whoops, we’ve run out of time this year.” shortly after WWII. After that, the USA’s victories and moral justifications start to appear less clear-cut.
And, by the way, even though it’s often called “American History” it’s usually only about the United States, thoroughly ignoring Central and South America (not to mention Canada – Really! Don’t mention them; they never get mentioned.)
Wow! That would be quite relevant today, as well; it leaves the Tea Party and other USA-is-a-Christian-Nation proponents without much to stand on.
—G!
*An editorial last year noted that it’s that lack-of-proportion which has allowed our democratic republic system to slowly transform into a corporate plutocracy. The difficulty, it noted, is that if representation in the House had kept up with the nation’s population growth, there would now be tens of thousands of Representatives (and still just 100 Senators) and it’s already tough to coordinate the participation of the hundreds we have now…