PSEUDOHISTORY: Did George Washington really say, "When government takes away citizens' right to bear arms it becomes citizens' duty to take away government's right to govern."

Did George Washington really say, "When government takes away citizens' right to bear arms it becomes citizens' duty to take away government's right to govern."

First, this is not a polemic for or against gun control. I'll save my thoughts on that for a different time and place. I'm merely asking if this common meme is true, correct, and historically sound. Did George Washington say this?

Apparently not. Let's start with the most authoritative, politically unbiased source I could find.  Mount Vernon (George Washington's home) and his Presidential library and their website, https://www.mountvernon.org/



From https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/spurious-quotations/  :

"When government takes away citizens' right to bear arms it becomes citizens' duty to take away government's right to govern."

The library has yet to find an explanation for this misquote or a similar quote of Washington's that was confused for this statement.

This is further supported by Snopes that began with the same source and then did their own additional research.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/george-washington-arms-quote/

An organization called Politifact concurred but then went on to discuss Washington's attitudes on guns in general.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/feb/20/facebook-posts/did-george-washington-offer-support-individual-gun/

In conclusion, it appears that George Washington did not say this. There is no evidence that he did and the quote does not appear to date back to anywhere near the time he lived.

Gangs of New York #2--Painting the "Dead Rabbits Gang," and did they even exist?

An 1857 newspaper illustration of the Dead Rabbit Riot 

In a previous post, (  https://history-for-fun-profit-and-insight.blogspot.com/2020/02/gangs-of-new-york-gaming-figure-and.html ), I wrote of figure availability for Gangs of New York gaming.  But, after one has figures representing the Dead Rabbits Gang, the next obvious question is how does one paint a member of the Dead Rabbits Gang? How, exactly, did these mid-nineteenth century slum brawlers dress? Did they have a distinctive look? And here's where problems come in.

Let's start with a look at the sources. According to The Great Riots of New York, page 92, the author writes of the Dead Rabbits, "their uniform was a blue stripe on their pantaloons,"  Alas, that seems to be it for this source. The entire description. All there is. However the author notes that one of their rival gangs, the Roche Guards, wore a red stripe in contrast.

If we turn to Ashbury's classic, The Gangs of New York, we get the following: on page 23, we learn that the Dead Rabbits had a red stripe on their pants, while the Roche Guards were the ones with the blue strip on their pants. The exact opposite, and, yes, I double checked that, in fact, I double and triple checked that a few times and they definitely contradict each other. Ashbury also describes the Dead Rabbits as "at the head of their sluggers carried a dead rabbit impaled on a pike." Ashbury, by the way, does not footnote or give sources. (And I think in this context, a "slugger" is a violent person who fights, not a club or baseball bat.)

And, if you don't believe me, and wish to double or triple check for yourself, both of these books are available online through sources such as archive.org and project gutenberg among others so you may check for yourself. (My personal guess is that Ashbury went to the Great Riots book and mis-copied in his notes, but that's just a guess.)

The Victorian Armchair General's depiction of the Dead Rabbits Gang. Alas, no painting guide although the wonderful people at TVAG seem to offer everything else. http://www.thevirtualarmchairgeneral.com/200-bhoys.html

Scorse's film, Gangs of New York, offers an alternative image.

If we go to Scorsese's movie, the Dead Rabbits are shown with the orange striped shirts (something that is nowhere in the book, and, at least sometimes, red striped pants.

The Dead Rabbits as show in the film. Aside from the red (or is it orange?) stripe on the pants and the dead rabbit on a pole, the rest seems to be invented. I have not been able to find a source for those stripes on the shirts, for instance.

Searching further, I also found a source selling a pair of Dead Rabbit pants that were apparently used as props in the film.

So, that's the film depiction of the Dead Rabbits Gang of the mid-nineteenth century. But should we take the film seriously as a source of details on how the gang dressed? Sadly, absolutely not.

If one goes to JSTOR, an academic database for scholarly articles, and does a search on "Dead Rabbits Gang" and related terms, one finds surprisingly little on the gang, perhaps for reasons that will become clear later. If you do searches to find what historians think of the film, you will soon learn that they universally note that the film was not intended as an accurate depiction of history, and include quotes from people involved in the decision making for the film where the filmmakers make it clear that accurate historical representation was not among the goals of the film.  (I've save several of these articles. If readers wish request, and perhaps even if they don't, I will try to share these sources later.) In the meantime, this interesting article, supports the contention that the film was not intended as accurate history.

See: https://www.thewelcomeblog.com/stories-of-new-york/gangs-of-new-york-facts-vs-fiction/4/2/2016 for one source. It's an interesting, well illustrated read, with nice pictures of the buildings and neighborhood, that gives a good introduction to both the period and the controversies about not just the extent of Gangs of New York type gangs and gang violence, but hints at the issue of whether or not the even existed at all.

In Tyler Anbinder's historical work, Five Points, he makes the case that the Dead Rabbits Gang did not exist at all and was instead a creation of public fears exaggerated by the media of the time. Anbinder argues his case well  and if you wish, you may go to his book and read his arguments on pages 284-289. He argues that the predominant gang of that time and place was the Roche Guards and the term "the Dead Rabbits" came from an incident where one faction of the group entered a meeting held by another faction and threw a dead rabbit on the table.

Which, by the way, muddles the whole "Roche Guard/ Dead Rabbit" / "Blue stripe / red strip" controversy completely, or perhaps just settles it for good, if we conclude that they were one and the same group. Perhaps.

Needless to say, if the group did not exist, it does pose a quandary for people like myself who wish to paint them in miniature in a historically accurate fashion. Alas!! It's not easy sometimes being a historical wargamer. Not only do people laugh at our strange modelling passions, but we have problems like this, problems that the general public just cannot begin to fathom or grasp. Alas! Tragic indeed.

To understand the issues involved, the issues underlying how a belief could be spread about a savage Irish gang that historians argue did not exist, one needs to understand just how strong and pervasive anti-Irish sentiment of the time was. The period cartoon below depicts the Dead Rabbits Riot of 1857 and illustrates this nicely. Personally, I think the Irish rioters shown look absolutely "Orcish," bearing a closer resemblance to fantasy gaming figures of goblinoids than actual humans.

Irish Rioters of the 1857 Dead Rabbits Riot in New York City as depicted in an editorial cartoon of the time. Personally, I think they look like Tolkein or Dungeons and Dragons Orcs. 

Crime Groups, Gangs, Reality, and Urban Legend in History and Popular Belief

It seems that there is a possibility that the Dead Rabbits were more of a legend than a reality. In future installments, I hope to discuss the implications for gaming. 

At the moment, however, it seems worth mentioning that this may not be unique. There are other cases where reality and fantasy have overlapped in the minds of many people. 

In mid-nineteenth century India the British colonial officials became quite concerned about a group known as "the thuggee" or "strangler sect." According to popular belief of the time, members would travel around India, finding unsuspecting victims and then strangling them as a sacrifice to the god Kali. While I make no claim to be able to judge the controversy, some modern historians have argued that the sect never existed, at least not to the extent believed by the British officials, and the British attempts to outlaw and suppress the sect stemmed from fear and hysteria. (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thuggee for an introduction to this controversy, and, yes, I just cited wikipedia and did so on March 1, 2020 if one wishes to know which version. Some day, particularly if I live forever, I hope to explore this controversy in depth.) 

Ninjas. Did Ninjas exist? The answer is definitional and depends on how one defines the term "ninja." Of course, in late medieval Japan, there were assassins and spies. But did the legendary "ninja clans," the families with hidden identities where children were raised and trained from birth to be super-human, black-clad, clandestine killing machines dressed in , exist? Probably not. And as for the black "ninja suit," it appears that the black suit tha is commonly associated with the ninja, actually came form the traditional outfit worn by Japanese stage hands several centuries later. These stage hands were required to sneak on stage and move the set around without being spotted by the audience. So in that sense, it appears that ninja did not exist. (At least for the moment, you'll have to trust me on this. It's something I may write about in the future. For the moment, this info comes from several threads on the old H-Asia discussion group as well as elsewhere. Someday I hope to spend time and really look into this issue in a thorough fasion. At least two good looking books on this very question have come out recently. I have read neither. I also have several "how to be a ninja" martial arts books in my collection and it would be nice to blog about them some day.)  It is worth mentioning that the belief in superhuman ninja assassins raised from birth, seems to have been cncouraged by the people who employed spies and assassins, the feudal lords of the time, who wished their enemies to be fearful of their capabilities. 

In our own society, not too long ago (1980s and 1990s), there was or has been a controversy about the prevalence and acts of Satanic cults. While many believe these were or are active in the USA, commiting horrific crimes, the FBI actually went so far as to issue a report stating they were not.( see: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/136592NCJRS.pdf ) I did some writing about this in the end of this long post and books on the issue are available at the end of the post: 

https://peterhuston.blogspot.com/2019/06/experts-more-questions-about-tammy-yard.html

It is not unknown for people to believe in violent criminal groups that do not exist.

Just FYI, years ago, I wrote a book on Chinese criminal groups in North America. While the book is so outdated that  I rarely recommend it, and there are things I would do different in writing such a book today, I have included a link to it below should anyone be interested. I did learn things about the subject of crime groups while writing it.

Books and Media for the period. 

There is a variety of media one can get if you wish to explore this period of American history in more depth. Please remember, if you order through these links you are supporting this website.

First, once again, we have this wonderful set of rules. 

  

Second, we have Herbert Asbury's classic yet sensationalized work, "Gangs of New York." Asbury was writing in the 1920s about life in the mid-nineteenth century and historians who look it over pretty much universally feel he was more interested in entertaining the reader than sticking to the facts and presenting a historically accurate document. It's an entertaining read that has been through several editions, but should not be taken as gospel. This is probably why when you look for more details and other sources on some of the things he describes you simply don't find them, as it is likely that they never existed.

Tyler Anbinder's "Five Points: The 19th Century New York City Neighborhood that Invented Tap Dance, Stole Elections, and Became the World's Most Notorious Slum," is a more serious history of the time and place written by a contemporary author. The two books at times contradict each other. 

The Great Riots of New York is a late nineteenth century work that describes historical events as the author understood them to have happened. It is probably one of the sources Asbury used to write his book and parts of it are well worth reading to understand this period.

Yes, there was a big Hollywood movie based on these things and the events in Asbury's book. Perhaps unexpectedly, I was not a particularly big fan of the film, neither are the people at TVAG either by the way, they make that clear in the introduction to their wonderful rules, and it is also not particularly accurate in its depiction of history. Dates are mixed and some of the details not quite right. Nevertheless, if you are going to game this period, it's gotta be a "must-see" film so,  if you wish, consider buying it through this link.

I was a bigger fan of a much lesser known BBC-America show called "Copper," which portrayed the adventures of a New York City police detective during the American Civil War. The show ran for two short seasons only and the actual number of episodes is a bit limited but it was a very interesting series and gives an interesting depiction of the underside of the City of New York at the time, even if it does not mention any of Asbury's gangs. Be forewarned that is a very dark and at times difficult to watch series but very well done. For instance, several episodes of the first season deal with the main character's attempts to get a 12 year old prostitute off of the streets and into a better life. She is portrayed disturbingly realistically. The situation is complicated when it turns out she is fleeing an abusive, yet completely legal, marriage to a man three or four times her age, and the legal options under the laws of the time are quite limited when he announces he wants her back. (The age of marriage at that time was much, much lower than now.) Worth watching if the period interests you and you can stomach dark materials.

Please be aware-

while there are only two seasons of the show available, they are being sold in several different packages so there are six items listed below.

   

And one more time, the awesome rules . . . 

Finally, my books . . . 

Yeah, I've written books. Please check them out and see if they interest you.

  

My book on criminal groups written in 1995

Social Media Hoax: Alexandria Ocasio Cortez

[UPDATE FROM MARCH 9,2020]


Arguably not history, but it's been a while since I posted here, and when I created this blog, I had hoped to do more here to expose the problem of pseudo-history, pseudo-archeology, and other false claims about history. (And while I'm on the subject, please check out the work of Jason Colavito . He's got a great blog, a free e-mail newsletter, he sends out each week like clockwork and lots of good stuff. Honestly, one reason why I skipped several proposed posts on false historical claims was that Jason Colavito has already done them.) This was originally posted on my other blog, peterhuston.blogspot.com , a less focused blog where I post about many subjects on an intermittent schedule. You can see it here, if you wish: https://peterhuston.blogspot.com/2019/02/social-media-hoaxes-alexandria-ocasio.html

So . . . with no further ado, a post on what will some day be a minor historical hoax. (Hmmmm. When do current events become history?  Heavy thought.)

I like to think the truth has a value. I like to think that misrepresentation is grounds for suspicion and looking carefully at the motivations of the people making them. And having said that, I think it's obvious that a lot of people out there are very, very scared of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, also known to many as "AOC." At least scared enough to knowingly spread lies about her. In these pages, I hope to expose some of those lies and misrepresentations.

For the record, I am actually not a fan of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her views. Honestly, in most cases, I don't claim to know enough about many of the issues she talks about and the economics surrounding them to hold an educated view. I do think she's making following the news more fun, and that it's great to see the field of discussion expanded when it comes to suggesting solutions to societal problems. (For instance, while I do not feel qualified to discuss whether a 70% tax on the extremely rich is a good idea or not, I think it's great that the idea has been not just proposed but also put in historical context as something that has been done in the past.)

I support truthful discussion and even attacks on her proposals and political views. This is what American politics should involved. I do not consider dishonest attacks on her character to be good, helpful, or conducive to a healthy political climate in our nation.

So, with that said, let's look at a hoaxed AOC photo, I found on FB.

First, here's the photo:

[UPDATE --OBVIOUSLY THE PICTURE IS GONE. WHY DO THEY DISAPPEAR LIKE THAT? IF SOMEONE KNOWS PLEASE EXPLAIN IN THE COMMENTS SECTION. WHILE I AM VERY PROUD THAT I DID MY OWN "DETECTIVE WORK" AND FOUND THE ORIGINAL PHOTOS MYSELF, THEY ARE NOW GONE FROM THIS BLOGPOST. WHY? WHY? WHY?
REGARDLESS, SOMEONE ELSE DID IT TOO, AND HERE'S THEIR WEBSITE:
https://www.truthorfiction.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-splits-image/  THANKS GUYS.]

While not my original work, this gives the basic idea of what I discovered. 

Obviously, not very flattering. Also, perhaps equally troubling, it offers no political insight or commentary and contains zero discussion of any issues. Which makes it even more problematic.

But looking into it a bit more, I found this.

Clearly one of these photos is an alteration of the other. Same young man holding a woman with spread legs, same room, even the same news show in the background. Obviously one is a photoshopped alternation of the other. And I think it's safe to say the upper photo is the reworked one. There are several reasons for this. The clothes on the upper photo do not look real to me. 

Not sure what to make of that "flaming fart" spewing forth from her bottom, but then again, that's not really the point of the thing, is it?

I also think that on the one above, AOC's head looks reattached. My guess is that the head shot used came from here:  

So . . . cheap smear job. Nothing more. Bad photo job. Again, if you want to attack OAC, and do it in a fair and fact focused, mature manner that contributes to mature political discussion, be my guest. I encourage it. But cheap smear jobs are nothing but cheap smear jobs and only weaken our nation and lower the level of political discourse.

Pseudohistory, Creationism, and Dinosaurs.

While most are aware that creationism provides an alternative to accepted science, many are not aware that it also offers an alternative to history as well as zoology. But of course it does. If one reads the Bible carefully, and takes the results literally, beginning with Adam and then calculating lifespans and genealogies with great precision, then adding on the known history that takes place after the Biblical stories end, the results reveal approximately 6,000 years of story. And if one takes the writings literally, something I've never seen as either necessary nor as a sign of devotion (nor have I ever seen non-Fundamentalist Bible reading as sacrilegious), that means that there has only been approximately 6,000 years of history since the Creation of the Earth. 

A dinosaur in medieval Europe from "The Great Dinosaur Mystery and the Bible." 

[(What? Have I just questioned the literal truth of the Bible? Does this mean I am saying God does not exist? Come on, do you believe George Washington and Abraham Lincoln really existed? Hmm, I'll reckon a guess that you do. But does this mean that you believe everything that was ever written about them? Probably not. And with that, the analogy is now ended and my theological musings put to rest for the moment. Suffice it to say that I admit my limitations and do not claim to offer easily palatable truth about either God or the nature of the Universe. With luck, if pressed, the best I can hope for is to occasionally share a really, really good question.)]

The Dinosaurs and other animals boarding Noah's Ark

It also means, that not only is your version of the Earth, only 6,000 years old but that those 6,000 years of history must include such important events as the Tower of Babel and the story of Noah's Ark and the Flood. Which is interesting enough, but, well, what about the dinosaurs? How do they fit in? 

I've seen at least four responses to this question. They are: 

1. Dinosaurs were never real. The fossils that look like dinosaur fossils were actually something else, perhaps created by Satan to mislead people and cause them to doubt the reality of the stories in the Bible. 

2. Dinosaurs were real but somehow predated the Garden of Eden and died out long before it. (This one is not very common, but it has had some interesting adherents.) 

A pterodactyl flying over the pyramids in ancient times

3. Dinosaurs were real but they all died out in the global flood described in the story of Noah. 

4. Dinosaurs were real, they survived the flood because Noah brought them on the Ark with all the other animals, they then got off the Ark with all the other animals, but they have become increasingly rare since the days of Noah's Ark, but are quite real and always have been and still might be encountered today. Interestingly this one seems to be the most common among "young Earth" Creationists (the Creationists who believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old) in my experience. Such a claim, tends to be tied in with cryptologists claims of the reality of the Loch Ness monster as well as Mkele Mbembe, a living dinosaur claimed to still survive deep in the Congo .

And, if you are some kind of Fundamentalist parent, and your kids are going through the Dinosaur phase, --all kids go through the dinosaur phase, don't they-- then clearly the last one has the most appeal for them. 

Which means that, if you have this sort of bent, and are either inclined to lie to children ("for their own good" -no comment) or are so scientifically illiterate that the Loch Ness monster seems provably real to you and the theory of evolution does not, then you can picture a view of human history where dinosaurs interacted with humans throughout known history and believe this is a fine book for you to give to your children. 

Or you can tell them that Truth is important, any meaning to life that is based on lies is fragile and hence temporary, science is a quest for truth, and, if done right, religion too is a quest for truth and real meaning. It's up to you. But either way, dinosaurs are cool.

All illustrations come from the following book and no copyright infringement or ownership is intended. 

The Great Dinosaur Mystery and Bible, by Paul S. Taylor, 1987, 1989, Chariot Victor Publishing, Colorado Springs, Colorado, a division of Cook Communication, Paris Ontario. Copies are easily available second hand. (There are other books on the subject available.) 

  

Dinosaurs in ancient China

Did Marilyn Monroe get a rib removed to appear more slender?

(originally written on Wednesday, December 23, 2015 and has appeared on other blogs of mine.)

Did Marilyn Monroe get a rib removed to appear more slender?

I seem to be on a skepticism kick. I am, it seems, slightly obsessed lately with trying to correct false statements and debunk rumors --perhaps even fight a little bit of hysteria. Of course, this is what I was strongly into in the '90s, back when I wrote the two "Scams from the Great Beyond" books. (Books that I finally put back in print. Buy them if you'd like at Amazon.com ) We'll see how long this lasts.

In the meantime, I recently heard a claim that Marilyn Monroe had two of her ribs removed in order to make herself more slender and attractive. I found this a little difficult to accept as, although I make no claims at being an expert, I've read two books on Marilyn, both collections of interesting essays, as well as the occasional magazine and newspaper article, as well as portions of her on-line FBI files. (Yes, the FBI kept files on Marilyn Monroe, particularly after and during her marriage to Arthur Miller. They make fascinating reading, particularly since they are so creepy and invasive and were done at taxpayer expense by an organization that I wish had a more admirable history.) At one point, I did a very cursory investigation into her death (somewhat superficial. I only used public, published secondary sources and not the original documents), and found this fascinating too. (And for those interested, my impression is that there was something wrong with the investigation, but it doesn't necessarily imply suicide or a murder cover up, although I don't deny these as possibilities. It seems that her two doctors had not always communicated well and one theory is that they'd accidentally between the two of them over prescribed drugs, and the authorities wished to cover it up.) She was a fascinating woman, paradoxical and intriguing in many ways. Despite this reading, I'd never heard such a thing as a story of Marilyn Monroe having her ribs removed.

Therefore I did a bit of on-line research. Although I don't consider it definitive, there are at least two strong arguments that Marilyn Monroe never had a rib removed.

First, according to an article in Vogue on stomach slimming surgical practices, plastic surgeon, John E. Sherman of Cornell Medical School, says that the surgical practice of rib removal for cosmetic reasons has never, to the best of his knowledge, ever actually been done, ever. He also says that it would be a very dangerous operation as the ribs are near the lungs.

Says the Vogue article
"As far as the won't die rumors about movie stars (Rachel Welch, Cher) having their lower ribs removed to make for a smaller waist, Sherman insists that he's never heard of such an operation actually taking place. "I'm sure, because people always bring it up, that someone's done it, somewhere," he says. "But there's never been anything published about it; no one has ever owned up to performing such a procedure, much less to having had one. To risk your life - your ribs are right there up against your lung tissue - for what would be a relatively minor change in aesthetics would be crazy." 

That seems pretty definitive.

Secondly, Marilyn Monroe's autopsy report has been released to the public. Although I've made no effort to seek out a copy of the original document, one website does claim to have published the autopsy report on-line. The autopsy report does not mention any missing ribs.

Instead, the relevant portion states the following:
"Skeletomuscular system: The clavicle, ribs, vertebrae and pelvic bones show fracture lines. All bones of the extremities are examined by palpation showing no evidence of fracture." 

Finally, and one of the reasons that Marilyn Monroe interests me is the way in which a human being was transformed, transformed both into a blonde comic sex icon, interesting since she was not a natural blonde, nor terribly happy nor reportedly able to truly enjoy sex (it was reportedly late in life that she thanked her psychiatrist for teaching her how to achieve orgasm), and as part of this has lost all privacy, both in life and in death, Marilyn Monroe's 1954 x-rays were reportedly recently put up for sale at public auction. Of course, this only shows that she'd maintained all her ribs at a point in time nine years before her death, but all the ribs do appear to be present.

In an effort to combat misinformation and lies, therefore, I share this image of Marilyn Monroe as you've never seen her before. Note how she posed with her hands on her hips. All the best, and take care. 

Peter Huston 

Note: This oriiginally appeared at http://peterhuston.blogspot.com/2012/09/did-marilyn-monroe-get-rib-removed-to.html on September 6, 2012 

Did the Chinese discover America? Is Gavin Menzies a genius? Hell, no. Smallpox shows they did not.

Notes: 

1. If you would like to see your products reviewed on this blog please contact us.
2.Please support this blog and its author. BUY MY BOOKS!

Sometime around 2003, a man named Gavin Menzies wrote a book entitled "1421, the year China Discovered the World." In this book, he advocated that the Chinese had built a large fleet and sailed around the world discovering new lands such as Australia and the Americas and trading and interacting with the people there long before the Europeans did. It was an exciting idea and it captured the imagination of many people around the world.

Menzies based his theory on the fact that around that time the Chinese did build a large fleet of vessels and ships and sailed around Asia going as far as the east coast of Africa near Eritria. Since many records of the voyages were lost or even deliberately destroyed soon after (for reasons having to do with Chinese politics of the time and differing opinions on the voyages) Menzies felt free to assume the Chinese might have done virtually anything imaginable during that time when he could find gaps in the record. Furthermore, Menzies liked to travel the world seeing different countries and different things and when he did, whenever he encountered things he personally could not understand (which was frequent) he would often tie what he saw in with his theory that the Chinese of that time had gone on vast global voyages around the world and create an explanation for these things, an explanation that often only made sense to him, and universally used these unproven Chinese historical voyages as the explanation. (If you've ever read Von Daniken's equally goofy book, Chariot of the Gods, in which we learn that the key to understanding much of ancient history is to insert space aliens whenever possible, you have seen this style of thinking before.)

Unfortunately, there were often large leaps in his logic and gaps in his knowledge of actual history and the result is a very silly book full of silly claims. The book is universally panned by Chinese historians, who at best, don't wish to talk about the book and others who scream when the topic comes up.


"But wait," someone will say, "Pete, how do you KNOW, yes, really KNOW, that the book and its premise is false? Is it not possible that you are too locked into a certain framework and tradition and pattern of thinking to see its brilliance? Isn't it possible that Gavin Menzies might be right, after all his books were best sellers and almost no one anywhere reads your books, and you might be wrong? Who can say?"

Well, sorry boys and girls, although history is a social science, and does require large amounts of interpretation with much room for discussion, debate, and disagreement, some things are not arbitrary. Some things are firmly grounded in evidence. And one of these things is the idea that the
Chinese did not arrive or settle or explore the "New World" in the pre-Colombian times.

And how do we know this?

Simple. Smallpox. Smallpox was a deadly disease endemic to both much of Europe and much of China during this time. (In many parts of China, smallpox was considered a normal part of childhood and some Chinese medical practitioners of the time thought it had something to do with material or energies in the mother's womb. -forgive me. I'll try and find a citation for this. I did write a paper on smallpox in China once at Cornell when I earned my MA. OK, not good enough. You deserve better. Here's one. http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/10.1163/15734218-12341377#FN60 Check around endnote 60. Follow it, tap into the vein, and you shall be blessed with the chance to learn a great deal about how the Chinese of centuries ago sometimes connected the disease smallpox with "fetal poisons." Lucky you. Ask and you shall receive.) 

So, okay, smallpox was endemic to much of China.

Smallpox was endemic to much of Europe.

Smallpox was unknown in the new world until the arrival of Columbus in 1492.

How can we be sure of this? Because when the Europeans arrived in the Americas, they brought smallpox and it killed huge swathes of the native American peoples. They were hit with the disease like they'd never been hit with it before.

Why?

BECAUSE THEY'D NEVER BEEN HIT WITH IT BEFORE, -SIMPLE HUH?

Yeah, and if Gavin Menzies was right, well, those poor, sorry, smallpox infected Indians who died in such large numbers from smallpox contagion when the Europeans arrived, well, they would have been hit with it before and the devastation would not have been so great when the Europeans would have arrived.

Yup, simple, huh? Yup, Gavin Menzies books are stupid. Nevertheless, I hope to write more about  them, and other varieties of pseudohistory here in the future.

By the way, as if the subject weren't ridiculous enough already, Gavin Menzies book, "1421, when China discovered the world," was released under a new title for the American audience -"1421, when China discovered America." Apparently it was felt Americans did not really care too much about the rest of the world. Sadly, there's probably more truth to this than to the rest of Menzies thinking.