This page is named for the Big Brother [government] information shredder in George Orwell's dystopian novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949).  Orwell wrote that "who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." But rather than focus on government censorship of the sort depicted in that book or in the photos on the left from Stalinist Russia, it will examine self-censorship -- how citizens across the spectrum pick and choose which parts of history they want to remember (cherry pick) and which they want leave out (flush down the memory hole), clouding context in the process. More often than not, such selective memory is subconscious and attributed only to one's adversaries.  Leftist historian Howard Zinn, for instance, said that the "chief problem in historical honesty isn't outright lying," but rather the "omission or de-emphasis of important data."  Many would argue that his own work proves that point better than he may have intended.  Such spin-doctoring can take the form of state censorship or propaganda (even democracies with Freedom of Information Acts do their share of redacting with a black magic marker) but, by and large, unlike the totalitarian regime depicted in Orwell's novel, citizens in democracies mostly toss things down their own memory hole and pick their own cherries. Americans pick and toss in books, articles, blogs, editorials, exhibits, commemorations and celebrations, campaign speeches, re-enactments, and arguments at work or around the dinner table.  When Henry Ford complained that "history was bunk," he didn't mean that it was boring or unimportant.  The problem was that it was "being rewritten every year from a new point of view...so how can anyone claim to know the truth about history?"  But it could never be otherwise unless we unplugged our brains.  Such arguments are inescapable because, even among people who think they're not interested in history, their attitudes and beliefs are shaped subconsciously by what they think has gone before.  After all, what else do we have to go on?  We're here to get to the bottom of how this selective sampling, cafeteria approach to history informs narratives used to support various agendas.  The History Hub-Memory Hole is where cherry-picked history comes to die.  The list below directs you to controversial topics.  They are a springboard students can use for the Contested History Reaction Paper.  

Students in distance learning sections can tap into the links below to get ideas for books they may want to review.  Those of you who are students in History 1301 & 1302 lecture courses have multiple options to pick from for your term papers.  One is to pick a contested historical subject and explain why it remains controversial and relevant to current debates in a Reaction Paper. The organizing theme of your paper will be to analyze which points interested parties emphasize and/or play down, and why.  How do they utilize common argumentative techniques or commit logical fallacies?  For help on these, consult the Straight & Crooked page.  You can also come up with your own topic for the Reaction Paper by using the search functions in Real Clear History or the History News Network (RCH & HNN above), or investigate Digital History Topics: Controversies.  Or you can use the ideas below.  The introductory articles below will help set the parameters of a debate, then your next stop will be our Library (above), where you can look at archives of periodicals, textbooks, and data from the reference desk.  The initial link is just intended as a starting off point.  You can also ask me for relevant authors.  Finally, you'll marshal your own argument and take a measured but strong stance on the given issue.  You can come down on either side or somewhere in between; the key is to back up what you think with good arguments.  Avoid hearsay, smearing, misrepresenting others' views, and the sort of general spazzing out that characterizes much of modern cable, radio and blogging across the political spectrum.  You will not be graded based on which side you choose of any debate, but rather the soundness of your argument.