• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Historical people now thought to be myths! (uk poll shows)

rynner2

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
54,631
A bucketful of urban legends here:

Winston Churchill didn't really exist, say teens
By Aislinn Simpson
Last Updated: 1:53am GMT 04/02/2008

A fifth of British teenagers believe Sir Winston Churchill was a fictional character, while many think Sherlock Holmes, King Arthur and Eleanor Rigby were real, a survey shows.

The canvass of 3,000 under-twenties uncovered an extraordinary paucity of basic historical knowledge that older generations take for granted.

Despite his celebrated military reputation, 47 per cent of respondents dismissed the 12th-century crusading English king Richard the Lionheart as fictional.

More than a quarter (27 per cent) thought Florence Nightingale, the pioneering nurse who coaxed injured soldiers back to health in the Crimean War, was a mythical figure.

In contrast, a series of fictitious characters that have featured in British films and literature over the past few centuries were awarded real-life status.

King Arthur is the mythical figure most commonly mistaken for fact - almost two thirds of teens (65 per cent) believe that he existed and led a round table of knights at Camelot.

Sherlock Holmes, the detective, was so convincingly brought to life in Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's novels, their film versions and television series, that 58 per cent of respondents believe that the sleuth really lived at 221B Baker Street.

Fifty-one per cent of respondents believed that Robin Hood lived in Sherwood Forest, robbing the rich to give to the poor, while 47 per cent believed Eleanor Rigby was a real person rather than a creation of The Beatles.

The study also shows a marked change in how people acquire their historical knowledge these days. More than three-quarters of those polled (77 per cent) admitted they did not read history books, and 61 per cent said that they changed channels rather than watch historical programmes on television.

Paul Moreton, the channel head of UKTV Gold, which commissioned the poll, said that while there was no excuse for demoting real historical figures such as Churchill, the elevation of mythical figures to real life showed the impact good films could have in shaping the public consciousness.

"Stories like Robin Hood are so inspiring that it's not surprising people like to believe these characters truly existed," he said.

http://tinyurl.com/22uas3

A virtual bag of jelly babies to anyone here who actually believed any of these!
 
In fairness there is substantial historical evidence that Arthur existed in some form and even some evidence that Robin Hood was based on a real person.

The rest of it is pretty shocking I agree.
 
Well, I'm making pancakes today. And I'll be having Winston Churchill, Robin Hood, and King Arthur round as well.

Not Eleanor Rigby, obviously, as she's dead. It says so at the end of the song.
 
Sounds more like a percentage of British teenagers haven't heard of these historical figures in the first place and were guessing the answers. Or is that worse?
 
rynner said:
..Fifty-one per cent of respondents believed that Robin Hood lived in Sherwood Forest, robbing the rich to give to the poor..
Click to expand...
Surely BBC1's second most popular Saturday evening series may have some bearing on this, though? We've a couple of threads on Robin Hood in Earth Mysteries - this one's a good start.
... while 47 per cent believed Eleanor Rigby was a real person rather than a creation of The Beatles.
Click to expand...
Being uncharacteristically pedantic for a moment, there was an Eleanor Rigby. There's a gravestone with that very name in a churchyard in Liverpool, one with which both Lennon and McCartney were familiar - though McCartney says he made her up, he did acknowledge he may have subconsciously recalled the name.

As for Churchill being fictitious, do they mention how many said he was a jowly insurance hound?
 
LONDON (AFP) - Britons are losing their grip on reality, according to a poll out Monday which showed that nearly a quarter think Winston Churchill was a myth while the majority reckon Sherlock Holmes was real.

The survey found that 47 percent thought the 12th century English king Richard the Lionheart was a myth.

And 23 percent thought World War II prime minister Churchill was made up. The same percentage thought Crimean War nurse Florence Nightingale did not actually exist.

Three percent thought Charles Dickens, one of Britain's most famous writers, is a work of fiction himself.

Indian political leader Mahatma Gandhi and Battle of Waterloo victor the Duke of Wellington also appeared in the top 10 of people thought to be myths.

Meanwhile, 58 percent thought Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's fictional detective Holmes actually existed; 33 percent thought the same of W. E. Johns' fictional pilot and adventurer Biggles.

UKTV Gold television surveyed 3,000 people.
Click to expand...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080204/od ... oryoffbeat
 
I was absolutely exstatic when this article came out. I have heard so many Britons make fun of the US for not knowing their own countries history. This is even better than not knowing this is knowing but not believing.
 
To be fair, Richard the Lionheart does have a silly, made-up sounding name.
 
Who the hell did they ask in this poll?

I cannot believe that anyone would think that Churchill was made up.

Are there really this many dumbass people in this country?
 
I've just read that the people polled were all under twenty. That makes me feel better.
 
A poll of 3,000 people by UKTV Gold??? God this must be of staggering statistical significance (not). Gods word to the Sun readers!!
 
There has to be a generational explanation for Churchill - I'm not exactly ancient but I can remember his state funeral on TV.

(but characters like richard the Lionheart are normally only mentioned in legends such as Robin Hood - maybe they deduce that as Robin Hood is fictional so are all the other characters mentioned?)

Might be interesting to conduct a poll on FTMB members - not a look-it-up in google for the right answers poll, but gut feeling, about characters such as Lady Godiva, King Arthur etc. (Answer options would be: real, myth, bit of both and dunno)

Says something about the state of history teaching in the UK though.
 
My 14 year old son was aghast at the report.

Perhaps its says more about the average person who watches UKTV gold and responds to such poll. Or even piss-takers perhaps?
 
My understanding is that history is no longer taught how it once was, being more about the study of how it's researched rather than facts & figures. Along with the fact that British history is itself considered a major embarrassment now I don't doubt it's pretty much excluded from the curriculum. So not surprising- just deeply saddening.
 
And a-mergin' I have been.
Mal_Adjusted said:
...Might be interesting to conduct a poll on FTMB members - not a look-it-up in google for the right answers poll, but gut feeling, about characters such as Lady Godiva, King Arthur etc. (Answer options would be: real, myth, bit of both and dunno) ...
Click to expand...
Now that is a splendid idea, so I've glued said poll onto this new agglomeration.

Or I had, until the poll code went loopy. Will try again later if it calms down.
 
drbastard said:
My understanding is that history is no longer taught how it once was, being more about the study of how it's researched rather than facts & figures. Along with the fact that British history is itself considered a major embarrassment now I don't doubt it's pretty much excluded from the curriculum. So not surprising- just deeply saddening.
Click to expand...

in primary we teach history in term long topics. Every primary school child will cover WWII, the Victorians, the Ancient Greeks, Invaders and settlers (i.e. the Saxons) and lots else besides over the period of their time in school. The problem is the time to teach it. Generally you cover history one term and geography the next. The other problem comes when children change schools, they might do Ancient Egypt in year three, change schools, and do it again in year 5.

What happens in secondary I have no idea.
 
Children today are badly educated by schools and parents.

And this is news?
 
theyithian said:
Children today are badly educated by schools and parents.

And this is news?
Click to expand...
It's useful to know how badly educated they are. Only then can we begin to consider how to improve things.
 
Are children really badly educated or have our ideas of what counts as an 'eductaion' shifted?

I am not defending the results of the poll - just trying to reign in the "world has gone to hell in a handcart, not in my day..." naysayers. I have a lot of time for the next generation and i'm pretty sure they don't enjoy it when they are told that their exams and education are worthless compared to in nineteen blah-de-blah.
 
I went on a course today about teaching Primary level history.
What tends to be taught now are the higher level thinking skills: what can we learn from history, how will it change the way we live today. It's about understanding who you are. That people died for your freedom and right to vote.
You are still taught about the kings and queens, the political leaders and the ancient worlds.
In the past history was about the dates of battles and kings. Although they are good to know, what use is this knowledge with out the means to apply it to your life.
 
liveinabin1 said:
I went on a course today about teaching Primary level history.
What tends to be taught now are the higher level thinking skills...
Click to expand...
At Primary level?

When I was teaching physics in the 70s, we had a student teacher with us for a while. He had to give a lesson to a class of 14 year olds on something like mass and acceleration.

Now what he expounded was all very good and accurate, but it involved concepts (and mathematics) far beyond the comprehension of that age group, so it all went right over their heads.

The whole point of education is to build up to 'higher level thinking skills' gradually. To start with with you need a simple collection of facts. Then you can look at different ways of organising these facts. Eventually you come to more sophisticated analysis. But to try to explain this to children without the long build up seems to put the cart before the horse.
 
The theory is something like this:

You want to teach about Isambard Kingdom Brunel. So you show the class that famous picture of him stood in front of a massive chain. Rather than saying to them 'This is IKB he built...............', you get them to decipher information from the picture. What, why, where, when, who and how. Get them to answer the questions rather than just giving them information will engage them in the subject.

Without a puzzle there is no learning.
 
That's true, that's good, that's right.

But.

I bet 75% of current students of minimum school-leaving age couldn't tell you one fact about I.K.B. unless he - himself - had been the specific object of study. There is zero breadth and little depth of study today.
 
They need to watch that Bob Godfrey cartoon... catchy tunes and everything.
 
liveinabin1 said:
You want to teach about Isambard Kingdom Brunel. So you show the class that famous picture of him stood in front of a massive chain. Rather than saying to them 'This is IKB he built...............', you get them to decipher information from the picture. What, why, where, when, who and how. Get them to answer the questions rather than just giving them information will engage them in the subject.
Click to expand...
"Er, it's bloke, in a big hat, with a cigar, and some huge chain.
How the f*ck am I supposed to know what's going on?
You're the teacher, you tell me."

Without some background info, how will the kids learn more?
There's nothing in the picture that says "Design, ships, bridges, engineering, etc" - he could be a fecking banker, or some other rich tosser who could afford to have his photo taken in those days.

Without a puzzle there is no learning.
Click to expand...
I agree with that, but if the puzzle is too baffling, you'll put kids off learning for good.
 
The propaganda enthusiast in me wants to point out that the 'reality' of any historical character is highly constructed and at least partly mythical..... though not to the extent of non-existence :roll:

Also,
rynner said:
"Er, it's bloke, in a big hat, with a cigar, and some huge chain.
How the f*ck am I supposed to know what's going on?
You're the teacher, you tell me."
Click to expand...
Actually, they're unlikely to mention the cigar, since it was airbrushed out of school textbooks a few years ago (click) to prevent fragile little minds from being influenced by the great man's evil habit.
 
They removed the cigar from the statue of Brunel on Bristol city centre a few years ago, to widespread incredulity. However, the Reckless Engineer pub, opposite Temple Meads station, still has an image of Brunel with cigar etched into it's windows. Ironic, really, as now like everywhere else it's strictly smoke-free.
 
I am gobsmacked to learn about IKB's appendage being removed!

I hadn't realised how far all this PC nonsense had gone. :evil:

Is 1984 still in any school curriculum, or are TPTB afraid that some clever little sods might understand it too well and start to think for themselves...? For the sake of the future of the human race, let's hope some do!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top