At one point or another we’ve all found ourselves falling asleep on the couch late at night only to wake up in the wee hours of the morning to whatever channel the TV was left on. It takes a few seconds for our brains to catch up to the bright lights and sounds our eyes and ears are taking in, but then it dawns on you…you left the TV turned to the History Channel and are now be subjected to an “expert” explaining how pyramids actually were used to communicate with aliens and everything we know is a lie.

The public has always and will continue to have a fascination with historical narratives that are blatantly false or far-fetched. Some prominent examples of pseudohistorical narratives that have been recently circulating are the Clean Wehrmacht myth, Holocaust denial, Black confederates, and alien involvement in literally any ancient society. Most scholars brush these theories and allegations off as the rambles of individuals who have no idea of what they are talking about, but as these trains of thought gain traction through social media and other digital platforms, we must pay them some mind in order to successfully challenge the disinformation they are spreading. We, as public historians, are exposed to many of these individuals due to our need to interact with the public and present historical facts and thinking that inherently challenges pseudohistorical ideology. This was the topic of conversation for my digital history class a couple of weeks ago where we discussed our role and responsibility as public historians in interacting with pseudohistorical understanding and narratives.

Towards the end of our discussion the question of when and if we should step in came up, and I believe that this is a key factor in the future of pseudohistory’s spread as well as its continued growth on online platforms such as TikTok, Twitter (X), and Instagram. According to Garrett Fagan, pseudohistory and pseudoarcheology can be broken down into a couple defining characteristics. Some of these characteristics include notions of challenging academia while at the same time trying to appeal to academics, making huge claims, using the “kitchen-sink” method, where they throw a bunch of evidence at their huge claim hoping something sticks, and selective presentation of facts that pushes the narrative to be in favour of their own argument. With these characteristics in mind, we must ask if there is a line that needs to be crossed before academic and public historians need to step in and deal with these individuals, and if there is any point to trying to engage in debates with them.

Some pseudohistories are mostly harmless. However, some grow into ideas and narratives that justify racism, genocide, misogyny, and a plethora of other horrible ideologies. An example of this includes Holocaust denial which gives platforms to fascism and antisemitism. The growth in these ideas can then potentially result in real-life consequences like that of the January 6th riots in the United States which were a result of far-right echo chambers and pseudo-factual narratives that fueled hate-filled agendas and misinformation.

Despite all this, I believe that there is value to engaging with individuals who believe in pseudohistories, within reason of course. People who have been fed misinformation and are genuinely confused, but willing to engage in meaningful conversation are who need to be focused on. There will always be people who don’t want to see reason or are just “trolling” around on the internet, trying to get a rise out of anyone and everyone who will listen. Because of this, it’s important to engage with those who are willing to listen and discuss because if we, as historians, shut down lines of communication, they will go to those who will listen to their theories and fall deeper into pseudohistorical narratives. However, if we go about it in a standoffish manner, we could potentially chase away people who are willing to learn and encourage the development of a desire to disparage academics like Fagan mentions.

I continue to be fascinated by pseudohistory and the many ways historians attempt to understand and engage with it. People will always be intrigued by fantastical ideas of secret knowledge and long forgotten empires and cities. I too enjoy stories that fall into the genre of magical realism and historical fiction, but that’s all they are… fiction. The line between reality and fiction is often crossed when dealing with pseudohistorical narratives. However, it is our job as public historians to interact with the public in meaningful ways and be the bridge between truth and academia and the public interest.