Read They Got It Wrong: History: All the Facts that Turned Out to be Myths by Emma Marriott Online


They Got It Wrong: History exposes historical fallacies and explains how they came to be, as far back as the Roman Empire all the way up to World War II.They Got It Wrong: History exposes historical fallacies around the globe from the Roman Empire to World War II. There are countless twisted, sanitized tales that have become entrenched in popular belief but are really nowThey Got It Wrong: History exposes historical fallacies and explains how they came to be, as far back as the Roman Empire all the way up to World War II.They Got It Wrong: History exposes historical fallacies around the globe from the Roman Empire to World War II. There are countless twisted, sanitized tales that have become entrenched in popular belief but are really now more than warped reflections of the truth—or flat out lies. Author Emma Marriot shines a light on these murky corners of history to separate out the facts from shadowy fictions and illuminate how and why these falsehoods got passed around as truths....

Title : They Got It Wrong: History: All the Facts that Turned Out to be Myths
Author :
Rating :
ISBN : 9781621450085
Format Type : Hardcover
Number of Pages : 179 Pages
Status : Available For Download
Last checked : 21 Minutes ago!

They Got It Wrong: History: All the Facts that Turned Out to be Myths Reviews

  • Amalia Gavea
    2019-06-05 08:07

    A quick read, but not satisfactory at all. I don't know what the author was trying to do, actually. The premise looked interesting, but all the facts she claims to be myths are presented in a heavily vague manner, and without stating any proper evidence (and by that, I mean sources and quotes) that could verify that this was a myth and that was the truth. Amateur attempt and many suspicious hints of propaganda.

  • Fil
    2019-05-16 06:23

    If you know anything about any name or event in this book you would find it very useless. Good for five-year olds and for people who have absolutely no interest in history (why would they even read this then?).Pedantic note: Facts do not turn into myths, the title should have been "They Got It Wrong: History: All the Myths Some Thought of as Facts" but hey, it's Reader's Digest.

  • Nicole Yovanoff
    2019-06-05 14:23

    Fun bits of information, but at times a bit of questionable American propaganda. Plus there was a little too much on the US history and not enough of anything else.

  • Gabriel
    2019-06-01 08:04

    I read this book as part of an exercise to develop skepticism. Most of the history myths I already knew or had an idea about and this book helped me re-assess them. However, the most important thing about reading this book comes at the beginning where the author states (I'm paraphrasing here): "In a given major event, if you ask 10 to 20 people about what happened, you'll get 10 to 20 different stories."I think this is the foundation of what our attitude towards history should be. I had a similar thought from watching multiple Steve Jobs documentaries and movies and also reading a few of his biographies. My thought on the narration of Steve Jobs life is that even though it just happened and we witnessed the most important part of it, we are still unable to agree on the facts. You'll find different versions on how he exited Apple the first time, why he founded Next, was he an innovator or not, what was his real relationship with Bill Gates, etc.The most impactful things I learned from this book was how the founding fathers didn't intend to make the US a democracy. It reminds me of Aristoteles listing democracy as the third of the worst types of government after tyranny and oligarchy. By the looks of its the founding fathers thought the same, and an aristocratic direction in government was seen for a while in US history. Or at least that's what I felt when they mention the myth that Lincoln fought the south because he wanted to abolish slavery. According to the book, abolishing slavery was a convenient to win the civil war, that's it. But Lincoln clearly states he doesn't see white men as equals to black people, a bummer to read.Another thing that was interesting but I somehow already knew was how Mao's "big leap forward" in China caused the death of millions of chinese people due to government imposed famine.What's most important thing here, is that I might have learned something, maybe I did not. All things learned in this book will need to be revisited and re-questioned as more information comes in. You gotta keep yourself educated and informed and always question your assumptions. Most likely there's a missing piece of a puzzle, an undiscovered truth, a new revelation that can change your point of view.

  • Andrew
    2019-05-20 09:07

    I find the Reader's Digest books fun, but extremely shallow and misguided. Maybe that's how they are supposed to be, but I don't like it too much. They Got it Wrong: History is an entertaining read to be sure, but suffers from many short-comings. One: many of the things they label "wrong" are not actually known to be completely wrong in the first place. Example, Christopher Columbus' expedition was not responsible for spreading syphilis. It says in the book that that is likely, but the idea may not be wrong. Even though it is labelled wrong. It is difficult to concretely label historical facts as right or wrong anyway. So not to much of a big deal for that one. Two: Many of the "correct" facts given as counterpoints are not necessarily right either. How many ships were sunk by the British in the Battle of Gravelines? Three like the book says, or is it the commonly held number of five? Which brings us to point Three: what is Emma sighting in this book for her facts? There are literally no citations, and only a few verbal nods to where she is getting her information. I hate when history books do this. CITE YOUR FACTS. CITE THEM. PLEASE CITE. Wikipedia is a better source then some of this tripe. The editorializing she does is often annoying, though this is more a personal dislike than an actual turn-off. Did this book do anything well? I think that many will find it a good stepping stone for a deeper look at many of the interesting topics held within. It is also a quick read that will, at the very end, satisfy many.

  • Joe
    2019-06-06 06:17

    Scott Adams recommended I read this book as part of his reading list.It was short and easy to read.It was heavily US focused and I did take offence at some of the comments and the way the UK was portrayed.The chapters different in their level of interest, but as a general overview it is useful to see:1) people often believe things that aren't true2) people appear to believe in what they want to believe in3) some of the myths of history became myths decades and centuries after the event4) despite clearer facts emerging some people do not care about finding the truth5) people will believe what uninformed or intentionally misleading journalists or people in the entertainment industry tell them to or lead them to believe6) The media will often want people to believe the most glamourous version of events that is likely to sell and there interest in the truth appears to be minimal

  • Erikka
    2019-06-01 13:12

    Other than a few little factoids and grammar things that bugged me ("myriad" is a synonym of "many", and the U.S. has bison, not buffalo. These, as well as a couple other things, irritated me). Otherwise, the information was interesting and well-cited, I learned a few new things (which means most people will learn a lot of new things because I have a history degree, so shame on me if I don't know at least half of this info), and I liked the little vignettes. Also, and this sounds weird, but the formatting was really nice: well-placed page breaks, the vignettes fell at easy-to-insert places, and even the little cartoon illustrations were unobtrusive. This was great editing (apparent from the actual language part).

  • Emily
    2019-06-05 11:07

    The book was a cute collection of some little known, some well known, inaccuracies in history. The information was clear, concise, and was presented in nice, short chapters. My biggest problem with this book is the way the citations are handled. There is a section in the back with a bibliography and a few citations worked into the paragraphs, but overall footnotes or parenthetical citations would have been better. Another weak fact was that Wikipedia was cited in the websites section. No one over the age of 12 should use Wikipedia as a source.

  • Mike
    2019-06-05 07:14

    Clever and cute idea. I'm thinking about having my daughters read it. It's written for a general audience, and while historians would likely roll their eyes at virtually every entry (because the myth-busting entries here are old news to them), it's not a bad read for non-historians. Harmless and kind of fun.

  • Linda Johnson
    2019-05-20 11:18

    There were a couple of myths about which the section of the book as interesting, but most of the myths were things I either had not heard of or were so uninteresting that I almost stopped reading. There was even one where they stated the myth and then proceeded to write the story showing that the myth was true.

  • Neenee
    2019-06-15 07:23

    too general for my liking

  • Duane
    2019-06-11 06:22

    If you've ever interrupted a conversation with the interjection "Um, actually..." and then proceed to correct someone's misinformed opinion, then this book is for you. (Not that I've ever been so gauche...)

  • Brittany Perry
    2019-06-11 08:14

    Some of the facts they got wrong just needed elaborating and some were twisted up. I truly loved this book and found it highly entertaining. a great coffee table book.