I bought a copy of Common Errors in History, which someone mentioned recently on LW. There were no copies on Amazon or other bookselling sites, but I found a copy on Ebay. No wonder it was hard to get - it's a 24-page pamphlet that was printed once, in 1945, by "The Historical Association," London.
I tried to find some common failures of rationality underlying the "common errors" listed. This is what I concluded:
English students in the mid-20th century learned a lot of history.
This booklet is full of statements such as, "The facts relating to the Corn Laws [of 1815-1849] are more often than not mis-stated in school examination papers," and, "The blockade of Brest and Toulon [during the Napoleonic wars] is usually misunderstood." My history lessons consisted primarily of repeatedly learning about the American Revolution and making turkeys or pilgrim hats out of colored cardboard.
The English sincerely apologize for their history.
In other countries, textbook authors try to make their own countries look good. In England, that would seem gauche. The entries on "Religion in the New England Colonies", "The Causes of the American War of Independence", "The First Chinese War, 1839-42", "Gladstone and the Turks", and "The Manchurian Crisis, 1931-32" complain that British textbook accounts place all of the blame on Britain.
History is simplified in order to assign blame and credit.
In numerous of the 20 entries, notably "The Dissolution of the Monasteries and Education", "Religion in the New England Colonies", "The Enclosure Movement", "The Causes of the American War of Independence", "The Great Trek", "The First Chinese War", "The Elementary Education Act", and "The Manchurian Crisis", the tract alleges that standard accounts are simplified; and they appear to be simplified in ways that allow a simple causal summary, preferably with one person, side, or act of legislation to receive credit or blame.
Not always. "The Great Trek" says that the Boers' depart is usually explained as due to their [blameworthy] indignation that the British had freed their slaves; whereas in fact they had a variety of different, equally blameworthy, reasons for leaving. And the entry on "Bismarck's Alliances" says that the textbook account is overly-complex in that it introduces a second treaty that did not exist.
This is the only general principle I could extract from the book, so it may just be a statistical accident.
If anyone would like a copy of the book, send me an email at gmail. But it's very boring.
Since you asked: for me it was disorganized and disorienting to follow. It starts off like you're looking for common errors in history, and then when you start your list, I can't tell if you're saying:
1) what you think are common errors, or
2) what the book claims are common errors, or
3) what general knowledge you have inferred from others' claim of error
or what.
Along the same lines, it's not clear what your bolded summaries are supposed to mean. What does, "the English are so very English" even mean? That they have English attribute X, where X is politeness, understatement, etc? That they're biased in favor of themselves? It doesn't get clearer by reading the passage.
Also, you give a few long lists in the middle of sentences which make it hard to follow to "get to the point", while not giving any information about the items in the list, as if there's some obvious inference I should be making just from the title of each item.
Finally, it's not clear what the general significance of your findings is, other than a chance for someone to get one specific book. It comes off as aimless and vague.
Sorry if I sound rude, but that's what I think.
Thank you for replying, but I was quite clear at every point on whether I was reporting things that are in the book, or my interpretation of them.
I disagree with the notion taught in English composition that every composition must have a "general significance". I find essays are often ruined, or at least needlessly lengthened, by the author trying to tie them up neatly, when wh... (read more)