How George Washington Fleeced the Nation ...and Other Little Secrets Airbrushed from History

How George Washington the Nation: And Other Little Secrets Airbrushed from History by Phil Mason was a very creative read. I received this book as a gift so I decided that I should give it a thorough read and a thorough evaluation. The book is as its title suggests a series of short excerpts from the lesser known side of history. A man who can break history down that nobody else can must be a genius, I thought. In reality hes an idiot who doesn't provide any provide any evidential support to his historical claims. I read half the book before I realized that this idiot is actually a genius. As a man who understands how history is written I figured out that Mason could say anything he wants and as long as he doesn't provide any footnotes or link to his "facts" the reader will not be able to call him on his bull. The typical reader for a book like this however, is probably not me.

Having a degree in history and having taken the simple steps of learning how history is written I understand that history is not too unlike science in the way that a hypothesis must be supported by an experiment that should be able to be repeated by others in the same field. In this case the hypothesis is the authors theory on what happened and the experiment is the facts usually primary sources either documents or witnesses. Taking this into account I decided to try and put these obvious shortcomings aside and simply enjoy the book at face value for what its worth. It turns out that the book is actually quite enjoyable. The "secrets" are broken down into short segments in which the author tells what he claims to be the true side of events, in some cases he does admit that they are the lesser believed side of the story and in a few cases he even admits that they are so far fetched that nobody should believe them but he does put them out there for consideration. In this regard I actually respect him, history is ever changing and the truth is a very fluid part of it. Evidence might support one truth as much as another and history continually portrays a very black and white version of situations that are often extremely complex. So with that being said I read the book for the simple enjoyment of it so I will now discuss the content of the book a little.

The author is British so in a couple cases I was forced to ignore the word "our" referring to the collective history of the British which is not my collective history. For example there is a section of the book that focuses on conspiracy theories regarding the royal lineage, kings and queens having illegitimate children that should be the true inheritors of what the author refers to as our throne. There are also a couple sections of the book that focus on British politicians and their shortcomings which I found myself skimming over because none of it made any sense to me. As an American we are not traditionally taught much about how the British government is run. I once asked my sisters British friend Claire how and when the prime minister is elected and I got an answer that equated to "they hold elections whenever they feel like it."

Other sections of the book focused on American politicians and I was forced to consider exactly what is taught to British children. In a good portion of the cases I found myself saying Yea everyone knows that. For example one section talked about how Ben Franklin was a womanizer and barely regarded his own wife and another talked about how Thomas Jefferson slept with his slaves and how many writers of the Declaration Of Independence related British control to slavery while simultaneously owning slaves or even that Einstein was not a genius at all things.

Some sections I knew were completely ridiculous others I knew but quite a few made me think that hey that could be possible. The author claimed that Shakespeare used cocaine and marijuana (which would be the earliest recorded use of cocaine and evidence perhaps of wider spread use of weed than previously thought). Other claims include that Oliver Swift once went a year without speaking to another human person, the swastika is actually a Sanskrit symbol for good luck, Cleopatra was actually ugly but it was cool cause so was Mark Antony, Joan of ark might have actually been a man suffering for a testosterone disorder, Pablo Picasso suffered from a rare form of headache that granted him his artistic gifts, and even that Salvador Dali signed thousands of blank canvases so that others could sell paintings saying they were his.

The only section of the book that drove me crazy was a section that talked about how popes aren't as Holy as we think they are which falls into the DUH category but he followed it up with a section that quotes (yea I said quotes because it, aside from the blip of Shakespeare and his drugs, actually provides evidenciary support to follow the writers arguments) the bible to show its flaws. He complains about how the church forbids murder but then shows sections of the bible where murder, retribution and even rape are promoted. It seemed like this section more than any other promoted the author's personal agenda and it appeared to be out of place with the rest of the book.

The book from a historical perspective is crap. There is no way to argue against the authors claims because its impossible to tell where his sources come from despite the fact that he uses the phrases "recent research," "a recent study," "Evidence suggests," over and over throughout this book. From an entertainment standpoint, this book was decent it made me think twice (even if briefly) about what I had been taught and had previously thought about many of histories icons.