I’m going to take a break from writing about history, and instead… write about history. Or more accurately, write about how I read history. I’m often asked how I select what to read. There are millions and millions of history books out there, how do you weed through the junk and get to the good stuff? How do you know if what you’re reading is fact, opinion, propaganda or outright lies? I have a few rules to abide by. As with most rules, they are not ironclad, but if you follow these, you’ll be off to a good start. Without further ado, James Salerno’s rules for reading history:
Use primary sources. This is my most important rule. It’s easy to place motivations in the heads of historical figures with decades or centuries of hindsight, but that often revises the truth to meet the narrative of subsequent events. I realize that it’s not feasible for everyone to access the Library of Congress, but you should be able to recognize when an author is quoting primary sources vs. when they’re inferring motive. This is why I enjoy Stephen Kotkin’s works on Stalin. He only uses primary sources. There are numerous accounts where someone, years after Stalin’s death, recounts a time where they saw Stalin threaten a kid on the schoolyard, and that moment is when they knew Stalin would become a tyrant. This is foolish. Kids threaten other kids all of the time, and the vast majority of those kids do not grow up to be genocidal tyrants. You need to look at what people are saying in real time. Did Stalin’s contemporaries think he was an insane despot in 1929? No. It’s easy to retroactively give post-facto motivations based on unrelated events. Especially with the villains of history. Did you find a book where someone recalled the time that Hitler cussed out his math teacher, and that’s how he knew Hitler would become a mass-murderer? Avoid these cartoonish portrayals. Evil is far more interesting when it has a human face.
Speaking of Stephen Kotkin’s works, find an author that entertains you. This is very easy to do in the era of YouTube. I discovered Kotkin’s books through some of his Russian History lectures I stumbled upon on YouTube. Nearly every author has an online presence. You can get a good feel for how well you connect with an author’s material based on how they present it via audio/visual means. Do you listen to Joe Rogan’s podcast? Did he have an author on who entertained you? Check out that author’s books. This is a good way to expand your reading pile without even reading.
Avoid “contemporary” history. This means 90% of what you see on the new releases shelf at places like Barnes & Noble. Modern, popular history will almost always attach whatever social issue is at the forefront to events that happened hundreds of years ago. I think Ron Chernow is a decent biographer, but he spent half of his George Washington biography talking about how Washington agonized over slavery. This is nonsense and not based on any evidence. You will also find that these authors take a righteous tone with these subjects, as if they are somehow brave and bold for coming out against slavery in the 21st century. When 99.99% of people agree with you, your stance is not “brave and bold.” Avoid self-righteous history. This means avoiding nearly all Lincoln books, outside of a select few (I’ll write more about Lincoln history eventually).
As a follow-up to that, avoid reading books by anyone who has a cable news contract. Cable news in a nutshell – two people yell at each other in a two-minute sprint to the finish line. When was the last time you watched CNN or Fox News and actually learned something? Cable news, or “infotainment,” is just product meant for consumption. It’s not meant to make you think. Maybe Mark Levin occasionally has something interesting to write, but there’s only so many hours in the day. There’s only so many books out there. Don’t you have better things to do with your time?
Speaking of having better things to do with your time, avoid conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories start with the least plausible scenario and go from there. Anything that goes on and on about the Illuminati. Anything that talks about ‘The Real Reason Kennedy Was Assassinated Was Because (insert thing that Kennedy never planned on doing).” Anything that focuses entirely on historical minutiae while ignoring all surrounding events. Avoid these! Conspiracy theorists, ironically, tend to base their entire ideology around one thing that cannot be disproved. I can’t DISPROVE that George Washington was installed by a Jewish banker cabal that set their 500-year plan of globalist takeover into effect in 1789. But by that logic, I also can’t DISPROVE that giraffes were transported here by an intergalactic civilization for…reasons. It’s nonsense. Want to know the “real” history behind something? Read multiple books on the event that approach it from different perspectives and come to your own conclusion. That’s all you can do.
Avoid “sexy” titles. “A New History Of….” or “So-And-So Revealed” or “The Shocking Truth Behind…” Does the title of the book sound like a checkout-counter magazine headline? It’s probably low-IQ. Avoid!
What about memoirs? Memoirs can be good sources but keep your BS detector on. Does George W. Bush or Barack Obama know things that I do not? Of course they do! But do not take what they say as gospel. There are certain things people in those positions are willing to disclose, and certain things they may omit. Memoirs can be a good indicator for what someone of historical importance was thinking at the time. But do not view memoirs as an authoritative take on events. They’re a chance to get inside the head of someone, nothing more. Think if you wrote your own memoirs. There will be certain things that are jaded based on your own opinions and certain things you may not want to disclose. Memoirs are a good starting point, but not a definitive source. Keep that in mind.
Set a goal. Reading “all” history is impossible. Covering all of just American history since 1776 is impossible, let alone pre-colonial American history, let alone ancient history. Setting a goal helps you focus without getting overwhelmed. When I amped up my historical interest from casual to hardcore, I made it a goal to read one biography on every United States president. That sounds like a lot, but I read one book and before you know it, I read two. Then 29, then 30, until I read them all. It’s not impossible. Want to learn about Africa? There are 54 countries in Africa. Read a book on each country. Does feudal Japan sound interesting? Maybe read a book covering each century. Goals help you focus, and you feel accomplished after achieving them.
And finally, go on tangents. When reading history, you may discover events that are only hinted at. The book you’re reading may not cover these things in detail, but they piqued your curiosity. That’s a good thing, keep track of this! When reading about the history of liberty and independence, I somehow stumbled upon 9th century Iceland, who functioned as a civil society with almost no government. That intrigued me, so I found a book that expanded on these topics. I would have never read about medieval Iceland if I stuck to just liberty in the American sense. Don’t be afraid to venture outside of your comfort zone. You may find that unrelated events share common bonds.
Those are my rules for reading about history. What about you? Do you have your own guidelines for selecting reading material? Please share in the comments!