theworldofdreams.com

I admit to having done poorly in history in school, pretty dry boring stuff (sorry J), but even I know some of this stuff.

------


1066 and all that: how Hollywood is giving Britain a false sense of
history

By Cahal Milmo

05 April 2004


The Battle of Hastings never took place and Adolf Hitler is a fictional
character. Robin Hood really existed, Harold Wilson saved Britain
during the Second World War and Conan the Barbarian is a bona fide
figure from early Nordic history.

It might sound like the latest attempt by revisionist extremists to
pervert the past but the reality is perhaps more disturbing: this is
how a significant chunk of the British population, muddled by Hollywood
films and unmoved by academia, sees history.

A survey of the historical knowledge of the average adult, to be
published this week, has uncovered "absurd and depressing" areas of
ignorance about past events, and confusion between characters from
films and historical figures.

Researchers, who conducted face-to-face interviews with more than 2,000
people, found that almost a third of the population thinks the Cold War
was not real and 6 per cent believeThe War of the Worlds, H G Wells's
fictional account of a Martian invasion, did happen.

Some 57 per cent think King Arthur existed and 5 per cent accept that
Conan the Barbarian, the warrior played by Arnold Schwarzenegger in a
1982 film, used to stalk the planet for real. Almost one in two believe
William Wallace, the 13th-century Scottish resistance leader played by
Mel Gibson in his film Braveheart, was invented for the silver screen.

The study raised new questions about the teaching of history after it
found that 11 per cent of the British population believed Hitler did
not exist and 9 per cent said Winston Churchill was fictional. A
further 33 per cent believed Mussolini was not a real historical figure.

Lord Janner of Braunstone, the chairman of the Holocaust Educational
Trust, said: "Such findings show that in our schools we are not
conveying sufficiently the recent past - a past in which many of us
lived and so many people died.

"If we are to prevent the return of Hitlerism in our present or future,
we have to know what happened in the lifetimes of so many of us.

"It is a terrible indictment of the level of knowledge of the general
population."

The detractors of the survey's findings blamed Hollywood and
television, which have gained a reputation for skewing historical
events to fit audience profiles and lift profit margins.

The film U-571, starring Harvey Keitel and Jon Bon Jovi, sparked fury
in Britain four years ago when it told how American servicemen altered
the course of the Second World War by capturing the Enigma code machine
from a German U-boat. In fact, it was British and Canadian sailors who
captured the machine in May 1941, before the US had entered the war.

The survey of 2,069 adults aged 16 or over was conducted for Blenheim
Palace to mark the 300th anniversary of the Battle of Blenheim.

Some 27 per cent of people interviewed thought Robin Hood, whose story
has been featured in films by directors such as Kevin Costner and Mel
Brooks, existed whereas 42 per cent believed Mel Gibson's Braveheart
was an invention. More than 60 thought the Battle of Helms Deep in the
Lord of the Rings trilogy actually took place.

Michael Wood, the historian, said the "dumbing-down" trend was damaging
people's knowledge of the past.

He said: "If you don't give an audience a clear idea of how we know
things, I believe this is a problem. Hollywood distorts history the
whole time and once you get that far down the line it's not history,
it's entertainment.

"History is there to give value to the present as well as to entertain.
You do diminish it if you take the mickey out of it in an attempt to
make it 'accessible'."

More than a quarter of people do not know in which century the Great
War took place and 57 per cent believe that the Battle of the Bulge,
the Nazi counter-offensive in the Ardennes in 1945, never happened.

A further 53 per cent think the military leader who lead British troops
at Waterloo was Lord Nelson whereas a quarter think the admiral's fatal
triumph at the Battle of Trafalgar did not take place. Nearly one in
five believe Harold Wilson, not Winston Churchill, was Prime Minister
during the Second World War.

John Hoy, the chief executive of Blenheim Palace, said history had
become boring. He said: "People associate history with dry and dusty
dates and facts. Once they realise that history is about people, the
way we used to live and the way we live now, it becomes more relevant
and more exciting."

Others pointed to the popularity of history programmes. Francis
Robinson, the senior vice principal of Royal Holloway, University of
London, said the delivery of history to a wider audience was a worthy
goal.

He said: "I have no problem with using different media to get across
the message to different sections of the audience. There is always a
chance of misrepresentation, but you have to weigh up that against the
broader good of encouraging more people's interest."

But Andrew Roberts, the right-wing historian, said: "We have abandoned
the teaching of history according to dates and context - if you don't
know that the Tudors came before the Stuarts then you can't understand
anything of that period.

"Within a generation we are going to lose our national memory and for
Britain, which has such a unique and complex history, that is a
complete tragedy."



Stranger than fiction: Disraeli, Hitler and the Cold War


Real people that some believe never existed

Ethelred the Unready King of England 978 to 1016 - 63 per cent
William Wallace 13th-century Scottish hero - 42 per cent
Benjamin Disraeli Prime minister and founder of the modern Tory party - 40 per cent
Genghis Khan, Mongol conqueror - 38 per cent
Benito Mussolini, Fascist dictator, 33 per cent
Adolf Hitler - 11 per cent
Winston Churchill - 9 per cent


Real events some people believe never took place

Battle of the Bulge 52 per cent
Battle of Little Big Horn Scene of Custer's last stand - 48 per cent
Hundred Years' War 44 per cent
Cold War - 32 per cent
Battle of Hastings, 15 per cent


Fictional characters who we believe were real

King Arthur , mythical monarch of the Round Table - 57 per cent
Robin Hood - 27 per cent
Conan the Barbarian - 5 per cent
Richard Sharpe , fictional cad and warrior - 3 per cent
Edmund Blackadder - 1 per cent
Xena Warrior Princess - 1 per cent


Fictional events that we believe did take place

War of the Worlds , Martian invasion - 6 per cent
Battle of Helms Deep , Rings Trilogy - The Two Towers - 3 per cent
Battle of Endor , The Return of the Jedi - 2 per cent
Planet of the Apes , the apes rule Earth - 1 per cent
Battlestar Galactica , the defeat of humanity by cyborgs - 1 per cent




news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/story.jsp?story=508517

that's depressing

Seon MacRae wrote:that's depressing

it's not just depressing it's typical. the sad part is the british are better about knowing their history than most cultures are. i have seen much worse tests than that. one for instance asked a class of undergrad political science majors to put the mexican and canadian borders on an outline of north america. the error tolerance of the test was pretty high so you didn't have to be very precise at all and yet less than 10% of the students managed it.

Fictional events that we believe did take place
War of the Worlds , Martian invasion - 6 per cent
Battle of Helms Deep , Rings Trilogy - The Two Towers - 3 per cent
Battle of Endor , The Return of the Jedi - 2 per cent
Planet of the Apes , the apes rule Earth - 1 per cent
Battlestar Galactica , the defeat of humanity by cyborgs - 1 per cent

Ok, these people HAVE to have been pulling the pollster's leg. Three percent out of two thousand or so interviewed, that's about 60 people. I say at least half of them were just being funny. I know if I was asked if the "Battle of Helm's Deep" actually occured or not I'd respond "yes!" just because the answer is just too damn ridiculous to be believed.

And I refuse to believe there are 20 people out there who sincerely believe humans have been defeated by cyborgs!!!

I have seen polls of Americans that were even more pathetic, so to a certain extent some of it is believable.

(yes, I'm American and proud of it, just in case anyone gets their knickers in a twist)

There are a lot of Americans who dont know Canada is to the north and Mexico to the south.
Also they think Alaska is much smaller than it is, and Hawaii is just off the coast of California.

For the most part, its pretty believable. Lets face it, most people have an absolutely pathetic knowledge of history. I used to think I was pretty bad, but over the years, I've met so many people who were so much worse that I've realized that I'm actually pretty knowledgeable about the subject (though I'm certainly willing to admit that there's a lot of details that I don't know.)

I disagree with their assessment of Robin Hood as 'not real', though. The legend of Robin Hood that people are familiar doesn't bear much resemblance to history, but there does seem to be a real person, once, that the legends are to some degree are based on. And although there's no real evidence of it, I'm willing to bet that the same is true of King Authur.

On the final section, "Fictional events that we believe did take place", I think there's a few things going on. Part of it is what Joram said - if a pollster asks you if you believe that humanity was conquered by cyborgs, some jokesters are going to say yes. More than that, though, is exactly what information was in the question. If the poll asked "do you think the Battle for Endor happened as depicted in Star Wars: Return of the Jedi?", that's one thing. If the question was simply "Did the Battle for Endor happen", then I don't think its unreasonable to guess yes for that. There's been thousands/millions of battles in human history, and no matter how historically knowledgable you think you are, you're not going to know most of them. If you're not familiar with the Star Wars movies, you're reduced to guessing.

Drocket wrote: And although there's no real evidence of it, I'm willing to bet that the same is true of King Authur.

Umm, I don't know about Robin Hood but I remember reading an article (it was a book's intro/preface actually) discussing the historical probability of the legendary 'King Arthur,' and apparently there are some good reasons to suggest such a figure probably did exist. Of course, whether his name was Arthur or not, and whether he was ANYTHING like the legends portray him, that's a bit shadier. For sure the story was greatly embellished during the middle ages and by the time the entire collection of traditions and legends was written down it resembled only slightly the supposed historical Arthur.

More than that, though, is exactly what information was in the question. If the poll asked "do you think the Battle for Endor happened as depicted in Star Wars: Return of the Jedi?", that's one thing. If the question was simply "Did the Battle for Endor happen", then I don't think its unreasonable to guess yes for that.

Yes, the way the question was asked makes all the difference. That's why whenever you are reading "public opinion" polls you should be real wary of who conducted the poll and the exact phrasing of question asked. You just have to watch one of those late night show's segments (I think both Leno and Letterman have them) where they ask the general populous "easy" questions. If you are not familiar with the facts behind the question, of course you are going to give "stupid" answers. The real problem is not stupidity but misinformation or lack thereof.

If asked whether they believed the "Battle of The Bulge" occured, for instance, I can easily see a good chunk of people answering "no" to that simply because certain historical events have been contextualized to contemporary settings and almost become idiomatic in their expression [i.e. I can see lots of people thinking "battle of the bulge" has to do with weight loss, rather than WWII ]

If you're not familiar with the Star Wars movies, you're reduced to guessing.

Then again, if asked ANYTHING about cyborgs or martians I would think most people would know enough to deduce cyborgs and martians just don't exist (let alone have them responsible for taking over the earth!)

Joram Lionheart wrote:Then again, if asked ANYTHING about cyborgs or martians I would think most people would know enough to deduce cyborgs and martians just don't exist (let alone have them responsible for taking over the earth!)

don't be so quick to dismiss this idea. i know it's a bit out of left field but damn it would explain so much about current affairs.

If Britain doesn't like "Hollywood" films, maybe they should watch only the BBC?

the most unbiased person would have to admit that historical accuracy is waaaay far down the list of things to worry about when hollywood sets about making a movie. heck sticking with the storyline of a book is a major problem for them. the first dune movie for instance had a big budget and cool fight scenes etc it just didn't seem to have all that much in common with the book. it's like that movie about those brave lads seizing the german sub and getting the enigma machine which incidentally was the second enigma machine the british got. the first coming from czech resistance fighters i believe. anyhow do you think the public would have gone to see a movie about british and canadian sailors being brave and heroic? not bloody likely imho. i am waiting with bated breath to find out that achilles was actually from tennessee or whatever they do to Troy.

Ehran wrote:i am waiting with bated breath to find out that achilles was actually from tennessee or whatever they do to Troy.

Well there's no true 'historical accuracy' to speak of if the film's writers based their screenplay mostly on Homer's Iliad and other hellenic/nistic dramatic/theatrical sources. When it comes to portraying something that's already fiction on the big screen, I think a certain degree of literary license can be granted to the scriptwriters looking for a "Hollywood ending." Then again, like you said, Hollywood completely butchered the first Frank Herbert's Dune. I know quite a few literature professors who would be mighty pissed if Tennesean Achilles lives short of the critic's expectations. Brad Pitt doesn't even look intimidating for pete's sakes (or demi-godly for that matter).

Celeste Kendreyl wrote:If Britain doesn't like "Hollywood" films, maybe they should watch only the BBC?

I think the problem is that they DO like Hollywood films (and too much apparently).

95% of what hollywood puts out is pollution in my opinion. Very little is actually worth watching. And it appears the British would be better off watching more of the BBC.

Well i for one kinda like BBC has some cool stuff on there

And the is possible historical evidence for both King Arthur and Robin Hood keeping in mind that all that supposedly happened during the dark ages when literacy was at a low

I am actually impressed with Lord of the Rings due to the fact i read the book and have seen all 3 films and besides a few changes he stuck to the story very well

hmm thinks thats all i wanted to say, if not ill be back.