ALTERNATE HISTORY

I'll be the first to admit that Hollywood creates some fantastic and incredible entertainment, but when it comes to history, I'll have to give them a failing grade.

Not that the film industry is trying to revise or change history, they're; shall we say, less than honest about some of the events they portray.

The most difficult part from the viewpoint of a historian, is the fact that the present and past few generations of Americans have been badly, though perhaps not intentionally, misled.

We all know if it says so in the newspaper, it's got to be the truth - correct? Right? Believe it or not!
Most of our past two generations have also come to the conclusion that if it happened in the movies, it's also got to be the truth. Right? And if that TV commercial says it'll work, it'll work. No doubt about it! Right?

Unfortunately, many of the historically accurate scripts from which the movies are based, are too often changed to suit the whims of a director, producer, or simply to make the movie more exciting. After all, who actually reads all that history stuff anyway - old people with coke bottle glasses and white hair?
Let me offer you a few classic examples, starting with a food war movie.

The movie "U-571" portrays a group of hard-corps American sailors who capture an intact code machine from a Nazi submarine, one of the most crucial breakthroughs of World War II. The facts surrounding this excellent movie are pretty accurate, with the exception of a few historical blemishes.

First of all, the submarine that captured the German Enigma machine and codebooks was the U-110, and it did so in May 1941, well before the United States entered the war. Secondly, the crew that accomplished this fantastic and daredevil exploit just happened to be British, not American. Minor details you say?

Even the old movies take glaring historical - shall we say, liberties.

For instance, in the 1950's Lewis and Clark classic, they portrayed Sacagawea as a beautiful Shoshone maiden who fell head over heels in love with Charlton Heston. She was in truth; married; her husband; Charbonneau, was on the expedition and they had a baby with them.

What about Big John Wayne in the movie, "The Horse Soldiers," wherein he portrayed Union General Benjamin Grierson who rode through the entire state of Mississippi thumbing his nose at the Rebels. The movie portrayed him as a great railroad engineer, when in reality, Grierson was a music teacher. He also got his backside thoroughly whooped by Nathan Bedford Forrest at Brice's Crossroads.

Then there's the movie "Glory" one of my favorites. The directors make it appear as if every black soldier in the 54th Massachusetts would have sold his momma to join the unit, when in actuality, it took a lot of brow beating and dirty under-handed recruiting to fill the ranks.

I could go on and on about the thousands of historical discrepancies from Spartacus to Braveheart to Gladiator and so on, that I just happen to spot. Unfortunately, it's not just the historical liberties that Hollywood has taken over the years, it's the fact that several generations have grown up thinking "historical fiction" is indeed historical fact.

For example, we all know that King Arthur and Robin Hood are loosely based on characters 'thought' to have existed at one time or other, and there are enough variations on their history and daring exploits to fill hundreds of volumes of books. I have received questions about both Arthur and Robin from sincere, well-meaning students who swear they are historical figures.

But when two very intelligent high school children come up to me and seriously ask if Ben Hur could have saved Jesus, or why didn't Sherlock Holmes capture Jack the Ripper, I get tongue-tied. I guess they've never heard of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle or General Wallace?

In a survey conducted by the Roper organization last winter among 55 colleges and universities, it was found that 100 percent could identify cartoon characters such as Beevis and Butt-head, but only 34 percent knew that George Washington was the general at the battle of Yorktown. Eighty-one percent of these "top" students earned a D or F grade in response to common historical questions.

History and geography run hand-in-hand. When half of US adults polled in a recent survey couldn't find Central America on a map, 43 percent couldn't find England, and 14 percent couldn't even find the United States, something is wrong.

Just what do our schools teach?

As writers or wanna-be-writers, it is imperative that we have at least a rudimentary grasp of history.
Then again, there are a huge umber of alternate history books out now (which I love) so perhaps details are not necessarily cast in stone!