Pseudo-history course: Create-a-Myth assignment

This is going to be so fun!

“Assignment Objective: The point of this assignment is to create a pseudo-historical theory from scratch and explain the process and details needed to make it fully believable in popular media.

Assignment Question: Make me a myth and make me believe in it. Your paper should come in two parts. First, write the myth in the manner of pseudo-historians. Let yourself be inspired by the readings from this semester. Provide the “proof” that is needed to make the myth work. Second, explain how this myth is believable and how it could endure. I will be analyzing the logic of your arguments carefully.

Formatting Guidelines: Assignments should be from 1500 to 2000 words (use the spell count on your word processor). These limits will be enforced. Written assignments must be written in PROSE. Absolutely no shorthand is allowed.

Supporting Documentation: You do need to have references and a bibliography. Some of them should be academic in nature. Others may not be. Some may be completely forged. You can add images, maps, videos, web pages, etc., that you choose to create. The point is to provide “proof” that would make your myth believable. Be creative. Illustrations and the like, as well as the works cited, do not count against the final word count of your paper.

Marking scheme:
1) Originality, 25%
2) Internal logic and “believability”, 25%
3) Documentation, 35%
4) Language, spelling, syntax, 15%
”

Pseudo-history course: Myth Summary assignment

Here is the list of Canadian historical myths the students are going to analyse for the course.

“The point of this exercise is to examine the myths that are found everywhere, from high school textbooks to the internet. Anybody can ‘google’, but information on its own is of no value without critical understanding. This assignment aims to push students to think about how and what we access with a more critical eye, unpacking the myths. Choose one of the myths below (sign your name). All the phrases below are false as stated but all have some factual root. Explain the factual roots of the myth, then posit how this myth came to be in the first place and why it endures. Be careful not to explain a myth by using another myth! You need facts! Please also follow the guidelines found in the syllabus.

1. There were no Blacks in Canada before the Underground Railroad
2. Canada has always been a welcoming home for immigrants
3. John A. Macdonald got everyone drunk at the Quebec Conference
4. There was no slavery in Canada
5. Quebecers are French
6. The Loyalists were mostly British-born
7. Basketball is Canadian
8. Joe Mufferaw is fictional
9. Glooscap was in fact Prince Zichmni, aka Henry Sinclair
10. The North West Mounted Police protected Prairie Natives from Americans
11. The Acadian national costume is historical
12. The H in the Canadiens hockey logo stands for « Habitants »
13. Confederation in 1867 was inevitable
14. A Canadian invented the telephone
15. New France was a despotism
16. Canada was discovered by John Cabot
17. Canada won the War of 1812
18. Canada’s Aboriginal peoples do not pay taxes
19. Canada was a wilderness before First Contact
20. Quebecers are all part Native
21. Canadians are a northern people
22. White-coat seal cubs are still hunted”

Pseudo-history syllabus (near to final version)

So I think I'm done with this. Things may change a bit, depending on getting permissions to use films and texts here, but I am happy with this. What do you think?

HIST401*: Topics in History

History vs. Pseudo-history:
Ancient Vikings, Ancient Chinese and Ancient Aliens in Canada

[Standard contact info redacted]

Description:
    In this 12-week senior seminar, students will explore the prevalence of pseudo-history and pseudo-archeology in Canadian popular media (books, television, web). The course aims to provide students with critical tools to identify and debunk these attractive and pervasive modern myths. Popular media, especially television, is filled with wild claims of secret origins, hidden discoveries and forgotten ancestors. From ancient aliens to destroyed civilizations, we are used to being told we have been either lied to by governments or that scientists wilfully blind themselves to the “truth”. Why does history and archeology so easily inspire endless theories about aliens, lost civilizations, dark conspiracies, apocalyptic predictions, and mysterious technologies? How do we tell the truth from the bunk?

Objectives:
    One of the most useable definitions of pseudo-history comes from (yes) Wikipedia: “Pseudohistory is a pejorative term applied to a type of historical revisionism, often involving sensational claims whose acceptance would require rewriting a significant amount of commonly accepted history, and based on methods that depart from standard historiographical conventions.” In this course, we will try to understand how this fallacy works.

    Students will become familiar with the most common of these theories and unpack the real, evidence-based ones from the confabulations of pseudo-historians and pseudo-archeologists: the numerous purported Viking, Welsh and Irish landings on the Eastern sea-board, the claimed extra-terrestrial influence on First Nation cultures, the "secret" histories of various Canadian political entities, the supposed Chinese colonization of Cape Breton, among others.

    Using critical, analytical tools commonly weld by historians, anthropologists, archaeologists and ethnologists, students will better understand the ways in which these ideas emerge and evolve in popular culture and public consciousness. More importantly, students will explore the many reasons why these hoaxes and pseudo-mysteries become and remain prevalent. More importantly, this course aims to explain why pseudo-science can so easily disguise itself as scholarly work in popular media.

Workflow:
    To the extent possible, this course will operate in a seminar format, emphasizing discussion and minimizing lectures, though there will be short presentations during most sessions. Students will have three principal assignments in this class. First, each student will prepare a short paper presenting and analyzing a common pseudo-historical myth from a given list. Second, each student will prepare a short paper presenting a pseudo-historical myth of their own invention, explaining critically how their fallacy could become popularly known. Third, each student will be responsible for participating in the online weekly discussions on Moodle. As in all seminars, in-class participation will also be part of your final mark.

Assignments:
Myth Summary, 20%, Week 5
Create-a-Myth, 20%, Week 12
Online Discussion, 10x5%=50%, Week 3 to week 12
In-class Participation, 10%, All semester

Full assignment descriptions and guidelines will be posted on Moodle and explained in class.

•Myth Summary (5th week): Pick one theory from set list and present its original inception and origins; provide hypotheses as to why it remains popular despite being debunked.
•Create-a-Myth (12th week): Create a pseudo-historical theory and explain the process and details needed to make it fully believable in popular media.
•Online discussion (from 3rd week to 12th week): Weekly questions. One entry per week minimum in the Moodle weekly forum.
•In-class participation (every week): Diligence in reading and active in-class discussion.

Books to purchase:
    Compulsory :
• Garrett G. Fagan, ed. Archaeological Fantasies: How Pseudoarchaeology Misrepresents the Past and Misleads the Public. (Abingdon, UK and New York: Routledge, 2006).
• Feder, Kenneth L. Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology. 8th edition. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2013).
    Suggested :
• Fritze, Ronald H. Invented Knowledge: False History, Fake Science and Pseudo-religions (New York: Reaktion Books, 2009).
All other weekly readings will be accessible through Moodle.

WARNING ABOUT THE WEEKLY READINGS:

    The weekly readings on Moodle are comprised of both serious, well-researched, academic works, AND fringe theories, pseudo-histories, bunk-filled speculations and sheer delusions. Nevertheless, the two types of writings are at times remarkably difficult to distinguish. In this course, we will endeavour to separate them. Be warned!

Academic Integrity Statement: [standard copy]

Disability Accommodations : [stardard copy]

Late Assignments, Extensions, and Rewrites: [standard copy]

Weekly Themes, schedule, readings:

1. Introduction to the course: concepts and caveats

Please try to read:
• Gulyas, Aaron, “History, Pseudohistory, and the Survey Classroom”, paper presented at the 2013 Midwest Popular Culture Association Meeting, St. Louis, MO, http://www.ajgulyas.com/papers-and-presentations/history-pseudohistory-and-the-survey-classroom/#_ftn7

2. Pseudo-histories: So attractive, so wrong

• Read the Gulyas article above.
• H. E. Legrand and Wayne E. Boese, “Chariots of the Gods? And All That: Pseudo-History in the Classroom”, The History Teacher, Vol. 8, No. 3 (May, 1975), pp. 359-370
• Benjamin Kelly, “Deviant ancient histories: Dan Brown, Erich von Daniken and the sociology of historical polemic”, Rethinking History, Vol. 12, No. 3, September 2008, 361–382.
• DOUGLAS ALLCHIN, “Pseudohistory and Pseudoscience”, Science & Education, 13 (2004): 179–195.

3. A history of pseudo-histories I: National narratives

• Stefan Berger, “On the Role of Myths and History in the Construction of National Identity in Modern Europe”, European History Quarterly, Vol. 39(3), 490–502.
• Bettina Arnold (2006). “Pseudoarchaeology and nationalism. Essentializing Difference”, Archaeological Fantasies: How Pseudoarchaeology Misrepresents the Past and Misleads the Public (Ed: Garrett G. Fagan) (Abingdon, UK and New York: Routledge), p. 154-179.
•Feder, Kenneth L., Konstantin Sheiko and Stephen Brown) ‘Pseudo History/Weird History: Nationalism and the Internet,’ History Compass, 7, (6), November 2009

4. A history of pseudo-histories II: History before/beside professionalization

• Wright, Donald A., The professionalization of history in English Canada, (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2005), p. 3-27.
• William D Rubinstein, Shadow Pasts: 'Amateur Historians' and History's Mysteries. (New York: Routledge, 2007), chap. 1 (“Introduction”).
• Fagan, Garrett G. (2006). "Preface". Archaeological Fantasies: How Pseudoarchaeology Misrepresents the Past and Misleads the Public (Ed: Garrett G. Fagan) (Abingdon, UK and New York: Routledge). pp. xvii-xix.
• Feder, Kenneth L. (2006). “Skeptics, fence sitters, and true believers: student acceptance of an improbable prehistory”. Archaeological Fantasies: How Pseudoarchaeology Misrepresents the Past and Misleads the Public (Ed: Garrett G. Fagan) (Abingdon, UK and New York: Routledge). pp. 71-95.

5. Ancient Explorers? St. Brendan and the like

• Feder, Kenneth L. Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology. 8th edition. (McGraw-Hill 2013). chap 5.
• T. J. Oleson, “BRENDAN, SAINT,” in Dictionary of Canadian Biography, vol. 1, University of Toronto/Université Laval, 2003–, accessed May 26, 2014, http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio/brendan_saint_1E.html.
• Jude S. Mackley, The Legend of St. Brendan: A Comparative Study of the Latin and Anglo-Norman Versions. BRILL, 2008, p. 43-68.
• David B. Quinn, “MADOC,” in Dictionary of Canadian Biography, vol. 1, University of Toronto/Université Laval, 2003–, accessed May 26, 2014, http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio/madoc_1E.html.
• Fagan, Garrett G. (2006). "Preface". Archaeological Fantasies: How Pseudoarchaeology Misrepresents the Past and Misleads the Public (Ed: Garrett G. Fagan) (Abingdon, UK and New York: Routledge). pp. xvii–xix.

6. Ancient Explorers? Vikings, the real and the fake

• Feder, Kenneth L. Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology. 8th edition. (McGraw-Hill 2013). chap 6.
• Wallace, Brigitta, ed.. Where is Vinland? http://www.canadianmysteries.ca/sites/vinland/home/indexen.html
• Palmer, Craig T., Wolff, Benjamin and Cassidy, Chris. “Cultural Heritage Tourism along the Viking Trail: An Analysis of Tourist Brochures for Attractions on the Northern Peninsula of Newfoundland.”, Newfoundland & Labrador Studies. Fall 2008, Vol. 23 Issue 2, p. 215-230.

7. Ancient Explorers? The Chinese and The Island of Seven Cities

Film in class: Mysterious Ruins: Cape Breton (2006, Ellis Entertainment, approx. 50 min)

• Chiasson, Paul. The Island of Seven Cities. Vintage Canada (2007), p. 1-24.
• Harrold, Francis B. and Eve, Raymond A. (1987). "Preface". Cult Archaeology & Creationism: Understanding Pseudoarchaeological Beliefs about the Past (Iowa: University of Iowa Press). pp. ix–xii.
• Fritze, Ronald H. (2009). Invented Knowledge: False History, Fake Science and Pseudo-religions. Reaktion Books, chapter 2.
• Wade, Geoff, ed. 1421 Exposed, http://www.1421exposed.com/

8. Secret History? Ancestors, Indian Princesses and Disgraced Nobles

• Allen B. Robertson. "'In a glass clearly': Genealogy, History and the Professional Researcher", Nova Scotia Historical Review, 15:2(1995)
• William Cronon, “Loving History”, Perspectives on History, April 2012, <http://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/april-2012/loving-history>
•  John P. DuLong, « The Origins of the Acadian Michel Forest ». Acadian Genealogical Exchange, 27, no 4 (oct. 1998): 103-121; extended article at <habitant.org/forest/index.html>
• Lambert, Robert D. «Looking for Genealogical Motivation». Families, 34, no 3 (1995): 149-160.

9. Secret History? Oak Island

Film in class: excerpt from Ancient Aliens, season 1, episode 4, “Closer Encounters” (approx. 10 minutes).

• Robertson, A. B. (1996). “Oak Island Secrets”. Nova Scotia Historical Review, 16(1), 163-176.
• Joltes, R. "A Critical Analysis of the Oak Island Legend." History, Hoax, and Hype: The Oak Island Legend. Critical Enquiry, last updated 2012. <http://www.criticalenquiry.org/oakisland/analysis.shtml>

10. Ancient Aliens? Influencing First Nations since 10000 BCE?

Film in class: Indians and Aliens, season 1, episode 1 (22 minutes).

• Feder, Kenneth L. Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology. 8th edition. (McGraw-Hill 2013). chap 9.
• Andrew Hind, “Ojibwa Tale of a 'Skyman' Visitor May Have Been Alien”, UFO Casebook,  http://www.ufocasebook.com/2012/skyman.html
• m_spicer, “Ancient Alien Theory and BC Coast First Nations People”, InfoBarrel, http://www.infobarrel.com/Ancient_Aliens_Theory_and_BC_Coast_First_Nations_People
• Coppens, Philippe, The Ancient Alien Question (Pompton Plains, NJ: New Page Books, 2012), chap. 8.

11. Ancient Aliens? Mysterious Ruins, or not

• Kenyon, J. Douglas “Exposing a Scientific Cover-Up: Forbidden Archeology Co-Author Michael Cremo Talks about the 'Knowledge Filter' and Other Means for Cooking the Academic Books”, in Kenyon, J. Douglas, ed. Forbidden History. Prehistoric Technologies, Extraterrestrial Intervention, and the Suppressed Origins of Civilization. Bear & Company, 2009.
• Feder, Kenneth L. Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology. 8th edition. (McGraw-Hill 2013). chap. 7.
• Robert C. Mainfort, Jr., and Mary L. Kwas, “THE BAT CREEK STONE: JUDEANS IN TENNESSEE?”, Tennessee Anthropologist, Vol. XVI, No. 1, Spring 1991

12. Wrapping up. Why all the bunk?

• Karl Banse, “Mermaids – Their Biology, Culture and Demise”, Limnology and Oceanography, 35.1 (1990), p. 148-153.
• Feder, Kenneth L. Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology. 8th edition. (McGraw-Hill 2013). chap 13.
• Michael D. Gordin, “Where Are the Pseudohistory Wars?” History News Network blog, 31 December 2012, http://hnn.us/article/14986
• Fagan, Garrett G. (2006). "Conclusion". Archaeological Fantasies: How Pseudoarchaeology Misrepresents the Past and Misleads the Public (Ed: Garrett G. Fagan) (Abingdon, UK and New York: Routledge). pp. 362-367.

Pseudo-History course is a go!!!

Because of a glorious kerfuffle that only my university can manage, I will not be teaching the online course I was asked to teach this September, but rather I will be teaching a seminar of my choice. Of course, then, my choice is going to be teaching the Pseudo-history course I have been playing with since last October.

As a result, I have been scraping and scrapping to finish the syllabus I had oulined, in order to get it all done in time. Things are going ok.

The problem with pseudo-history is that very few academic historians want to engage with it at all. There is a dearth of articles and serious books debunking pseudo-history out there, and there is so much of it! Conversely, academic archeologists have had to deal with fringe and bunk archeology, if only to ensure that their subjects of study don't get destroyed by wackos who start digging willy nilly or by grave robbers. So, using the ample sources that are out there debunking pseudo-archeology, some very serious and interesting websites, articles and mostly theses excerpts, as well as Ancient Aliens and similar shows, I am devising a course that aims to teach students how to identify and debunk those types of fallacies.

The rationale behind this course is simple and inspired by A. J. Guylas (@firkon)'s paper at the 2013 Mid-West Popular Culture Association entitled History, Pseudohistory and the Survey Classroom. He was stunned by the number of his students who buy into what are (to us) obvious pseudo-history myths and such, asking about it in class. Most students seem to buy into the idea that academic historians and academic archeologists lie and hide "the truth" from the greater public. They have been convinced by all the fringe researchers, the Von Danikens and the over-tanned commentators from Ancient Aliens. A number of history majors in A.J.'s classes, as well as in mine, will become teachers. If they can't escape the bunk themselves, how are they expected to respond to their students who buy, wholeheartedly, into the bunk?

Granted, this is going to be a senior seminar (4th-year), which means I'm only going to have 22 students at most. It's a start, especially for a trial run.

This is what the course looks like right now. It will certainly change, especially as I figure out what readings to assign.

HIST401*: Topics in History

History vs. Pseudo-history:
Ancient Vikings, Ancient Chinese and Ancient Aliens in Canada

Description:

In this 12-week senior seminar, students will explore the prevalence of pseudo-history and pseudo-archeology in Canadian popular media (books, television, web). The course aims to provide students with critical tools to identify and debunk these attractive and pervasive modern myths. Popular media, especially television, is filled with wild claims of secret origins, hidden discoveries and forgotten ancestors. From ancient aliens to destroyed civilizations, we are used to being told we have been either lied to by governments or that scientists wilfully blind themselves to the “truth”. Why does history and archeology so easily inspire endless theories about aliens, lost civilizations, dark conspiracies, apocalyptic predictions, and mysterious technologies? How do we tell the truth from the bunk?

Objectives:

One of the most useable definitions of pseudo-history comes from (yes) Wikipedia: “Pseudohistory is a pejorative term applied to a type of historical revisionism, often involving sensational claims whose acceptance would require rewriting a significant amount of commonly accepted history, and based on methods that depart from standard historiographical conventions.” In this course, we will try to understand how this fallacy works.

Students will become familiar with the most common of these theories and unpack the real, evidence-based ones from the confabulations of pseudo-historians and pseudo-archeologists: the numerous purported Viking, Welsh and Irish landings on the Eastern sea-board, the claimed extra-terrestrial influence on First Nation cultures, the "secret" histories of various Canadian political entities, the supposed Chinese colonization of Cape Breton, among others.

Using critical, analytical tools commonly weld by historians, anthropologists, archaeologists and ethnologists, students will better understand the ways in which these ideas emerge and evolve in popular culture and public consciousness. More importantly, students will explore the many reasons why these hoaxes and pseudo-mysteries become and remain prevalent. More importantly, this course aims to explain why pseudo-science can so easily disguise itself as scholarly work in popular media.

Workflow:

To the extent possible, this course will operate in a seminar format, emphasizing discussion and minimizing lectures, though there will be short presentations during most sessions. Students will have three principal assignments in this class. First, each student will prepare a short paper presenting and analyzing a common pseudo-historical myth from a given list. Second, each student will prepare a short paper presenting a pseudo-historical myth of their own invention, explaining critically how their fallacy could become popularly known. Third, each student will be responsible for participating in the online weekly discussions on Moodle. As in all seminars, in-class participation will also be part of your final mark.

Assignments:
Myth Summary, 20%, Week 5
Create-a-Myth, 20%, Week 12
Online Discussion, 10x5%=50%, Week 3 to week 12
In-class Participation, 10%, All semester

Full assignment descriptions and guidelines will be posted on Moodle and explained in class.

Myth Summary (5th week): Pick one theory from set list and present its original inception and origins; provide hypotheses as to why it remains popular despite being debunked.
Create-a-Myth (12th week): Create a pseudo-historical theory and explain the process and details needed to make it fully believable in popular media.
Online discussion (from 3rd week to 12th week): Weekly questions. One entry per week minimum in the Moodle weekly forum.
In-class participation (every week): Diligence in reading and active in-class discussion.

Weekly themes:

1. Introduction to the course: concepts and caveats
2. A history of pseudo-histories I: National narratives
3. A history of pseudo-histories II: History before/beside professionalization
4. Ancient Explorers? St. Brennan and the like
5. Ancient Explorers? Vikings, the real and the fake
6. Ancient Explorers? The Chinese and The Island of Seven Cities
7. Secret History? Ancestors, Indian Princesses and Disgraced Nobles
8. Secret History? Secret Societies and Government
9. Secret History? Oak Island
10. Ancient Aliens? Influencing First Nations
11. Ancient Aliens? Mysterious Ruins, or not
12. Wrapping up. Why all the bunk?

When I have a bibliography to show for it, I'll put it up as well.