Fake Heroes: Ten False Icons and How they Altered the Course of History

Product Information

Coco Chanel grew up mostly in an orphanage run by nuns. Her flair for fashion was real, and she was industrious, but as she became hugely successful, a pretty dark side to her personality emerged. She was a Nazi collaborator who treated her staff with contempt, was unethical in her business dealings, and had a string of affairs with fellow fascist sympathizers. The Crisis in British Journalism Byline Times investigates media monopolies, their proximity to politicians, and how the punditocracy doesn’t hold power to account

Trigger Trigger Trigger book. Put me on edge. Some was super good, some Otto you went off on your own ramble and I couldn't follow. Chapter titles were rubbish in correspondence to the subject matter in that chapter. There were some areas that captured me, the war and how it is still glorified, brainwashing kids history, Churchill. Some however just waffled on, about the crown, Napoleon, chapter 10, conclusion didn't conclude just went on a tangent. Sandbrook, Dominic (27 May 2021). "How the culture wars came for history". UnHerd . Retrieved 27 December 2021. English, Otto (2021). Fake History: Ten Great Lies and How They Shaped the World. London. ISBN 978-1-78739-639-5. OCLC 1246540717. {{ cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher ( link)

I felt that this book didn’t quite meet my expectations, but I still got much out of it. To that extent I will give the sequel “Fake Heroes” a go. Not in the least that, to my regret, I was once a Che Guevara fanboy. Much has changed since then. Fact Articles predominantly based on historical research, official reports, court documents and open source intelligence. This is a mixed bag that deconstructs "great lies" of history and attempts, with varying degrees of success, to find parallels with the current political reality. The brilliant chapters on the hyper-mythologised version of Winston Churchill and weaponising of WWI/WWII memory in modern Britain will resonate with any Brit who has had the misfortune to question Churchill's legacy or, heaven forbid, neglected to wear a paper flower. I even liked the chapter on the dubious origins of "curry." I could go on, so I will. Churchill did not “reinvent” himself as a journalist for the Second Boer War – he had previously covered the Cuban insurrection for the Daily Graphic, been commissioned as war correspondent for the Daily Telegraph, and covered the reconquest of Sudan for the Morning Post. Churchill was not “alone” in his opposition to Indian independence in the 1930s – the Government of India Act of 1935 was intended by the government to secure British rule of India, not pave the way for independence. Obama did not remove Churchill’s bust because his grandfather was tortured while Churchill was PM – it is doubtful that his grandfather was ever imprisoned by the British and in any case, he was allegedly arrested while Attlee was PM. Artillery did not shell the East End of London during the siege of Sidney Street.

I liked some of the chapters. The Churchill chapter and the Britain in WW2 chapter were interesting and made me think. After a very brief period he had accelerated the morale of the officers and men to an almost unbelievable degree. It was sheer personality …. No detail of our daily life was too small for [Churchill] to ignore. He overlooked nothing…. I have never known an officer take such pains to inspire confidence or to gain confidence; indeed he inspired confidence in gaining it”Culture History, music, cooking, travel, books, theatre, film – but also with an eye on the ‘culture wars’, nationalism and identity. Argument Honestly held opinions and provocative argument based on current events or our recent reports. BOOK REVIEW: Tearing down myths white men tell other white men". BusinessLIVE . Retrieved 27 December 2021. Whether it's virtuous leaders in just wars, martyrs sacrificing all for a cause, or innovators changing the world for the better, down the centuries supposedly great men and women have risen to become household names, saints and heroes. But just how deserving are they of their reputations? Nem először tapasztalom azt az ambivalens érzést, hogy egy olvasmányom gondolatiságával mélységesen egyetértek, de a megírás módja egyenesen taszít. Hisz végtére is mit állít English? Elsősorban azt, hogy aki hülye, az többnyire annyira hülye, hogy nem is tudja, hogy hülye. Ez egy nagyon alapvető igazság. Aztán még azt is állítja, hogy vannak emberek, akik nem annyira hülyék, viszont morális hulladékok. Ők aztán elmennek politikusnak vagy politikai tanácsadónak, és megélnek a hülyékből. Azt mondják nekik, amit hallani akarnak - például hogy a hülyék igazából nem is hülyék, hiszen az angol (magyar, piréz, stb.) nemzethez tartoznak, és egy angol (magyar, piréz, stb.) szervileg nem lehet hülye, mert ha hülye lenne, akkor franciának vagy németnek születik. No most ami a morális hulladékokat illeti, hát igen, valóban kitapintható egy ilyen tendencia. Csak az van, hogy English ebből az egészből két következtetést von le: