30 Of The Biggest ‘Eff You’ Moments In History

We were interested in finding out why some moments in history might be exaggerated for dramatic effect. Dr. Ferguson, from Stetson University, had this to say: "As with anything else, you get more readers!"

He noted that many people write history with a particular moral message in mind. "They leave out inconvenient facts and add in other things that just aren't true in order to fit the narrative," he told Bored Panda via email.

Bored Panda also wanted to learn more about source reliability and the signs that historical events might have happened differently than someone claims. "For original sources, it's good to know who they were writing for. Who was their audience? Often, they were flattering someone powerful," the professor explained.

"Shakespeare's histories are a classic example... written for the Tudors. Thus, for example, Richard III had to look bad (and hey, he did kill his nephews), as he was defeated by Henry VII Tudor. Older sources tend to embellish a lot in general," Dr. Ferguson said.

"The reliability of sources is improved if multiple sources say more or less the same thing, so different witnesses have the same account," the psychology professor said, adding that if one source is writing generations later, it might be based on a prior source.

"Look at, for instance, the 'official Gospels': they vary on many accounts, but are also similar on some others. Where there's agreement, that increases confidence those events actually occurred and aren't just embellishments." According to Dr. Ferguson, historical accounts that are unflattering for the group writing the account are another good indication of the truth.

"People tend to embellish in ways that flatter themselves, their patron or groups, so unflattering accounts tend to be more likely to be true, all things being equal."

Meanwhile, the psychology expert shared his thoughts on how someone can tell that claims made in the present are likely exaggerated or changed. He said that one thing to look out for are claims that "map on nicely" on contemporary moral or social controversies. 

These narratives are designed to make the person stating them feel morally good. However, this comes at a cost. Namely, that the source doesn't recognize "the murky nuances of most of history."

One example, according to Dr. Ferguson is the idea that slavery was 'invented' by Europeans for North America. "Brutal slavery existed throughout history, and continues in much of the world to the present day... we just call it 'human trafficking' now." 

Similarly, a red flag is when a source creates a binary—aka Manichean—narrative with clearly 'good' and 'bad' sides. Romanticizing one group of people and painting the other as complete villains ignores a lot of the nuances. Progressives and conservatives are both known to spin historical narratives, and focus on or downplay certain events, for their own ends.

As a rule of thumb, it’s best to be slightly skeptical about everything and anything that you read online. So before you share or reshare some fact or claim that you’ve stumbled upon on social media, take a moment to do some research.

Now, we get it, we’re all super busy with work, school, parenting, and moonlighting as superheroes. There are very few people who have the time to double-check and cross-reference every single fact they find online. So your time and energy are better spent looking at the source that made the claim in the first place. Are they reliable? What kinds of biases do they have?

Broadly speaking, there’s no such thing as a ‘perfect’ source. However, that’s not to say that all sources are alike. Far from it! The very best sources value journalistic integrity and transparency, do proper research, and admit to having made mistakes (and then correct them!).

So, for example, if you find an outlet that links back to the original sources for any claims they make, you can trust them more than their competitors. This way, they’re allowing their audience to double-check any info they share. The quality of the original sources themselves matters to a massive extent as well. There’s a huge difference between a peer-reviewed academic journal and random gossip shared on a sketchy internet forum.

You should also always consider what the goal of someone making a specific claim is. Are they looking to make money? Do they have a particular political agenda? How well-versed is the person in that specific field? You’ll often find that people are simply parroting what they hear elsewhere or they might be biased when it comes to certain topics.

Though complete neutrality is close to impossible, it’s well worth the effort to find sources and people you can trust to put in the effort to show a broader, more nuanced picture of the world.

At the end of the day, don’t forget to trust your gut. If you feel that some sort of claim is ludicrous or sounds fishy, do some digging!