Rating: 
Summary: Disappointing
Review: The premise is good, but the book simply moves from topic to topic too quickly. The author seems to delight in pointing out these untrue myths and legends, and he is able to document these claims via footnotes and bibliography, but there is no in depth discussion of these myths. Instead the book is full of disjointed sentences which form very short chapters and then your on to the next topic. For a more scholarly approach to the same topic, try "Lies My Teacher Told Me : Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong" by James Loewen
Rating: 
Summary: Learn the History You Didn't Learn in School
Review: This amusing book, by news reporter Richard Shenkman, puts to rest many American myths that we have all been taught growing up. Shenkman tackles explorers, the founding fathers, presidents, the family, education, holidays, art, and quotations, effectively disproving many of America's most cherished myths.Shenckman shows that: - George Washington never chopped down a cherry tree. - Scientists didn't think the radiation from the first nuclear bomb would kill anyone. - Abraham Lincoln was not poor. - The U.S. was warned it would lose in Vietnam. - Charles Lindbergh was not the first man to fly across the Atlantic nonstop. A fun and entertaining read!
Rating: 
Summary: shenkman goes too far in efforts to dig up dirt in "legends"
Review: this book is both interesting and thought provoking, providing many well-researched refutations of some cherished american myths. however, in some instances, shenkman is a bit hasty in his efforts to dig up as much dirt as possible, and fails to include all the facts. for example, shenkman alleges that ethan allen, vermont's great hero of the revolutionary war era, should be considered a traitor on par with benedict arnold because of "secret" negotiations conducted with the british in canada. In fact, the so-called haldimand negotiations were by no means conducted in secret. furthermore, since vermont was, at the time, an independent republic, the negotiations were not treasonous. the british thought they were seducing allen, but the vermonter was only trying to guarantee his state's safety from british and indian raids while at the same time putting pressure on congress to admit vermont into the union. to support his allegations against ethan allen, shenkman cites only one source, a book published over sixty years ago. shenkman would do well to do better research before he goes about besmirching any more national heroes.
Rating:
Summary: shenkman goes too far in efforts to dig up dirt in "legends"
Review: this book is both interesting and thought provoking, providing many well-researched refutations of some cherished american myths. however, in some instances, shenkman is a bit hasty in his efforts to dig up as much dirt as possible, and fails to include all the facts. for example, shenkman alleges that ethan allen, vermont's great hero of the revolutionary war era, should be considered a traitor on par with benedict arnold because of "secret" negotiations conducted with the british in canada. In fact, the so-called haldimand negotiations were by no means conducted in secret. furthermore, since vermont was, at the time, an independent republic, the negotiations were not treasonous. the british thought they were seducing allen, but the vermonter was only trying to guarantee his state's safety from british and indian raids while at the same time putting pressure on congress to admit vermont into the union. to support his allegations against ethan allen, shenkman cites only one source, a book published over sixty years ago. shenkman would do well to do better research before he goes about besmirching any more national heroes.
Rating:
Summary: interesting; well researched
Review: This book makes you initially hate the author for violating some sacred cows of history (such as, Davy Crockett surrenderedat the Alamo and did not die fighting off the hordes of Mexicans), but because of the scope of the topics and the depth with which each one was researched, one can appreciate history more fully.
Rating: 
Summary: A Part of the Problem
Review: This book provides the real truth about many of the myths and legends that get passed around as history. Since dramatizations are always more popular that dull reality, this work is never ending. The author says that Americans know plenty of history, but little of it is true. No facts are cited, so page 11 serves as an ironic introduction. Seventeen chapters group historical topics. They make entertaining reading, and are informative. But are they all 100% correct? Note how many of his notes reference a sole source. Page 22 questions Eli Whitney's use of interchangeable parts from inspecting surviving examples. But after decades of wear wouldn't the original parts have been replaced? The Ford assembly line (p.25) came from Chicago slaughterhouses. The "Founding Fathers" chapter teaches you what is censored from the schoolbooks. Page 31 tells of the Yazoo land swindle in Georgia, and the part played by the US Supreme Court after the fact. Neither Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, or Hamilton went to church regularly (p.35). "Presidents" says that Warren Harding was selected after many ballots. His Cabinet included some of the best minds in the country (p.50). If not the brightest, he made it up by often working from 8am to midnight until he died of a heart attack. Eisenhower's "fuzzy locutions" were just a way to give evasive answers (p.54). Reagan was a liberal Democrat from the 1930s to the early 1950s (pp.56-57). Most Presidents had a middle-class to rich background, except Andrew Johnson [and Bill Clinton?] (pp.58-59). Shenkman contradicts de Tocqueville on the "equality of conditions" in America. But de Tocqueville was right; lavish living was politically incorrect, and considered immoral. De Tocqueville also commented on America's fascination with money. "Sex" suggest the only diference from 200 years ago is more publicity. The sermons against vice in the late 19th century may have been against the industrialized version (p.71). Big cities had guidebooks so "the reader may know how to avoid them" (p.72)! "The Family" notes the high rate of divorce in America started in the 1880s (p.80). Divorce seems to follow the economy (p.81). In past centuries early death was so common that single parent families were prevalent (p.82). "War" suggestss a censored reign of terror during the Revolution; a higher proportion of Loyalists fled than Royalists from Revolutionary France (p.84), where more died. Shenkman says the Mexican War was for territory, as if this was unusual (p.91)! Like most historical arguments, one man's truth is another man's myth. Page 103 says the Japanese emperor and the Supreme Council decided to end the war on June 20, 1945 weeks before the A-bombs were dropped. No one expected deaths from the radiation! The popular image of "The Frontier" as a place of violence is due to Hollywood movies and dime novels, rather than historical fact (p.112). The Kansan cow towns which saw more violence were those with a large transient male population looking for fun. Davy Crocket's legend came from his political biographies (p.114). "Education" notes the failures in schooling goes way back; it is not a current phenomenon (p.13). College rebellions were common in the early 19th century (pp.135-6). "The Good Old Days" refer to the times where problems were forgotten and good memories retained (pp.159-160). Drug abuse was widespread in the late 19th century, not counting alcohol (p.164). "Folklore" says many famous figures believed to be mythical were based on real people, like Johnny Appleseed (p.166). The "Famous Quotes" chapter explains why some are "famous misquotes:. You can not fool all of the people all of the time after they read this book.
Rating:
Summary: A teaser - and I'm not sure to trust it
Review: This looked like a fascinating premise - debunk all the things we think we know. Unfortunately, the book did not live up to it's promise for me. The author tried to cover so much ground that nothing could be properly explored or explained. Just a lot of random factoids strung together. I'm normally a fan of the factoid books, but I guess I just had mismatched expectations. I expected more from this book. I was also vaguely troubled at a number of points during the book. The author used a lot of weasel words (might, could, may, etc.) when trying to convince us that the conventional understanding of a particular point is wrong. If you know better, say so. If it's a matter still in dispute, that's a little too academic for me to care about. At other points, I found myself challenging his assumptions and sources. The one good thing I can say about this book is that for popular entertainment it was exceptionally well footnoted. (Not that I have the resources to look up all those books, but it was reassuring to think that I could.) I doubt I'll be picking up any of his other books.
Rating:
Summary: A teaser - and I'm not sure to trust it
Review: This looked like a fascinating premise - debunk all the things we think we know. Unfortunately, the book did not live up to it's promise for me. The author tried to cover so much ground that nothing could be properly explored or explained. Just a lot of random factoids strung together. I'm normally a fan of the factoid books, but I guess I just had mismatched expectations. I expected more from this book. I was also vaguely troubled at a number of points during the book. The author used a lot of weasel words (might, could, may, etc.) when trying to convince us that the conventional understanding of a particular point is wrong. If you know better, say so. If it's a matter still in dispute, that's a little too academic for me to care about. At other points, I found myself challenging his assumptions and sources. The one good thing I can say about this book is that for popular entertainment it was exceptionally well footnoted. (Not that I have the resources to look up all those books, but it was reassuring to think that I could.) I doubt I'll be picking up any of his other books.
Rating:
Summary: Could be so much better
Review: This short book is along the same idea as "Lies my Teacher Told Me" etc, but seems a very superficial approach. It is uneven. Parts are fascinating. The best section deals with myths that surround American Presidents. Some are fluff, but neat to learn. Lincoln hated to be called Abe! Some of the information is things that most everyone has heard before- Lincoln grew a beard in response to a letter from a little girl. Some of the information is dubious as well- Were the Adams' (JOhn & John Q) REALLY the Kennedy's of the nineteenthe century. My personal favorite is the section in which the author dispels the "rags to riches" myth with which so many preisents are associated. It makes a great politcal story, but is rarely accurate. As the author points out Lincoln was not wealthy as a child, but also not poor by the standards of the day. The sections on sex, family, and education really offer a facsinating view into American past. In some segments the author seems to really struggle to uncover a "lie" he explains that Emma Lazurus' famous poem is in fact innacurate because the immigrants were not truly tired (!) This was an entertaining way to spend a morning, but by no means a scholarly look at American history
Rating:
Summary: Could be so much better
Review: This short book is along the same idea as "Lies my Teacher Told Me" etc, but seems a very superficial approach. It is uneven. Parts are fascinating. The best section deals with myths that surround American Presidents. Some are fluff, but neat to learn. Lincoln hated to be called Abe! Some of the information is things that most everyone has heard before- Lincoln grew a beard in response to a letter from a little girl. Some of the information is dubious as well- Were the Adams' (JOhn & John Q) REALLY the Kennedy's of the nineteenthe century. My personal favorite is the section in which the author dispels the "rags to riches" myth with which so many preisents are associated. It makes a great politcal story, but is rarely accurate. As the author points out Lincoln was not wealthy as a child, but also not poor by the standards of the day. The sections on sex, family, and education really offer a facsinating view into American past. In some segments the author seems to really struggle to uncover a "lie" he explains that Emma Lazurus' famous poem is in fact innacurate because the immigrants were not truly tired (!) This was an entertaining way to spend a morning, but by no means a scholarly look at American history
| 
