take liberties with the historical truth (as do all movies based on history), but they also give a vivid visual sense of England in the 16th century. A British “docudrama” miniseries from 2017 titled Elizabeth I makes an earnest effort to stay factual.
As with so many of the terms discussed in this chapter, the names of historical periods can lose their meaning with the passage of time. I was born and grew up in the postwar era, but as World War II fades into history and as more recent wars erupt, the term postwar is less widely understood. (“Which war are you talking about, Pops?”) Also, some labels can seem more arbitrary than others. Only 16th-century England under the reign of Elizabeth I wears the tag Elizabethan, for example. Elizabethan doesn’t describe the worlds of late-16th-century China (Ming) or late-16th-century Peru (ruled by the Spanish). Yet Victorian, a term for the period 1837–1901, when Victoria was queen and empress of Britain’s vast colonial holdings, applies well outside her sphere, especially to styles and cultural attitudes. Victoria never ruled California, for example, but San Francisco is recognized for its Victorian architecture.
Perceiving and avoiding biases
Some people challenge the very concept of history. “Whose history are we talking about?” they ask. If the victors write history, why do we accept those bullies’ tainted point of view as being true? What about the victims? What about the indigenous peoples, such as American Indians and Australian Aborigines? What about women? It’s not fair that so much of history is so overwhelmingly about white men.
It’s true that history as we know it is slanted. History is people writing about people, so prejudice is built in. You have to factor in the biases of the time in which events happened, the biases of the time when they were written down, and the prejudices of the scholars who turn them over and over again decades and often centuries later. I can’t change the fact that so many conquerors, monarchs, politicians, soldiers, explorers, and — yes — historians have been men. It’s just as true that conventionally taught world history still spends a disproportionate amount of time on Europe, on how it was shaped and how it shaped the other parts of the world: the Americas, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia.
Are there other stories worth telling, other points of view, and other truths? You bet. You’ll find some of them in this book, lightly touched upon, just like everything else here. Where I can, I nod toward the realities of our global society as non-Western countries — most notably China, among many — have become major modern economic and political forces, and developing nations are poised to play ever-larger roles in shaping history.
I try not to repeat historical accounts that lie, saying that something didn’t happen when it did. Civilizations and nations have always done terrible things in the name of patriotism, nationalism, racial purity, religious righteousness, security, and most of all greed. Those things should be named and remembered. In 1096, for example, bands of Christians, as they gathered to travel east for the First Crusade (a war against Muslims at the behest of the Pope) waged brutal attacks on Jewish communities in Europe. Does it help anything today to pretend that those attacks never happened? No. Neither does it help to pretend that at least 500,000 members of the Tutsi ethnic minority weren’t brutally murdered, largely by militias under the Hutu-majority government in the African nation of Rwanda in 1994. It happened.
During World War I, the Ottoman Empire killed at least 1 million Armenian residents in what is today Turkey and deported many more. The Turkish government denied, and continues to deny today, that the wartime “relocation” of Armenians was an attempted genocide.
A few years after that atrocity, in 1921, a white mob in Tulsa, Oklahoma, attacked a prosperous black business district and destroyed it. The violence left hundreds hospitalized, an undetermined number of dead, and as many as 6,000 black people locked up by the National Guard. Tragically, the Tulsa Race Massacre and other attacks like it happened in many places in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Yet 100 years after Tulsa, some Americans vigorously argued that the event should be forgotten, that to recall it was too divisive, that this part of history shouldn’t be taught. U.S. President Joe Biden, when he visited the site in June 2021, disagreed, saying, “Some injustices are so heinous, so horrific, so grievous, they cannot be buried, no matter how hard people try.”
You may want to change the world. Good. It needs changing. Or you may just want to change the history books. Either way, it helps to know what you’re up against.
Noticing the Noteworthy and the Notorious
People are contradictory creatures. Many of the most famous people ever were as much bad as good. A great military leader, for example, can also be a cruel murderer. Furthermore, the way that a person is evaluated in history can change from book to book and historian to historian, depending on the point of view of the author and the subject matter being discussed. One book focusing on a king’s private life may depict the ruler as being an abusive husband, whereas another oriented toward his impact on his subjects may show that same man as a resolute champion of social reform.
Studying contradictions
King Henry VIII, who ruled pre-UK England from 1509–1547, provides a particularly colorful example of a contradictory character. If you’re reading about the history of Christianity, you’ll note Henry’s role as founder of the Church of England. In military history, his attention to building a strong navy stands as an important factor leading up to the English fleet’s celebrated victory over the mighty Spanish Armada in 1588. If you’re interested in his personal life, you’ll remember him as being handsome and athletic in his youth, but obese and diseased in later life. You’ll certainly remember that the most famous thing about Henry is that he married six times and ordered two of his wives to be beheaded for treason.
Like any other person, Henry changed. He contradicted himself. He had good qualities and bad ones. The bad overwhelmed the good as the king got older, but his life still illustrates how multifaceted a historical figure can be. (You can read more about King Henry VIII in chapters 10, 14, and 22.)
Looking at events from different angles
Some of the most fascinating characters in history are those who appear to be heroes from one perspective and villains from another. An example, also from English history, is Guy Fawkes, the man who tried to blow up King James I and both houses of Parliament in 1605. Fawkes was caught red-handed before he could ignite a massive charge that would have blown apart a meeting of the monarch and parliamentarians. He was executed for his crime and remains a British national villain. In the United Kingdom, people still celebrate Bonfire Night every November 5, the anniversary of his capture, by building bonfires and burning effigies.
Yet Fawkes wasn’t merely a villain — not just a mad bomber. He was part of a group of Catholic activists who planned this violent act as a last-ditch effort to overcome repressive and brutal anti-Catholic persecution in officially Protestant England. Viewed from that perspective, many English Catholics of the time considered Fawkes to be a freedom fighter.
In a similar vein, George Washington is viewed as one of the greatest Americans ever — the Father of His Country. But events could have unfolded differently. As an American colonist, Washington was technically a subject of the British Crown. If the American Revolution of the 1770s had failed, the king would have been justified in charging Washington with treason, a hanging offense. Thus, he could have gone down in history as a traitor.
