My Thoughts: This is a book that every person should read. Having been written in 1996, I think it's still relevant. Without taking a political side, Loewen gives the cold hard facts that our high school textbooks are leaving out. Spending years (about 11) combing through 12 of the most frequently used textbooks in schools, Loewen shows us how most of these books are written in a way that encourages patriotism before truth, blind optimism over reality. I love the country I live in, despite its many shortcomings. Every country has shortcomings because they're filled with PEOPLE. And people fall short. But it's important to know the true history of where you come from. Opening our eyes to this history doesn't make us less patriotic, just more aware and better able to take care of our country. And that's the point of this book.
I always try to understand the author's angle, the lens they're looking through and what their ulterior motives might be. Loewen writes from a pretty unbiased point of view without the rhetoric of the Republican and Democratic parties that I get SO TIRED of hearing. He's not here to make you vote a certain way. He doles out harsh truth, but leaves praise where it's deserved in a voice that is more observant and analytical than emotional. And while the title of the book might sound cruel, he also spends a chapter trying to find an explanation WHY we're using these textbooks in the classroom and it's not just the fault of the teachers. There is a larger more political issue going on here that goes beyond the classroom. Prepare to take less pleasure in some of our national holidays...
**Also, the man's Notes section in the back of the book total just over 55 pages so if you want to take this reading further then you have plenty of references to look for.
Favorite Quotes: "Lying to children is a slippery slope. Once we have started sliding down it, how and when do we stop? Who decides when to lie? Which lies to tell? To what age group? As soon as we loosen the anchor of fact, of historical evidence, our history textboat is free to blow here and there, pointing first in one direction, then in another. If we obscure or omit facts because they make Columbus look bad, why not omit those that make the United States look bad? or the Mormon Church? or the state of Mississippi? This is the politicization of history. How do we decide what to teach in an American history course once authors have decided not to value the truth? If our history courses aren't based on fact anyway, why not tell one story to whites, another to blacks? Isn't Scott, Foresman already doing something like that when it puts out a "Lone Star" edition of "Land of Promise," tailoring the facts of history to suit (white) Texans?"
"Hugh Trevor-Roper, the dean of British historians, has written, "A nation that has lost sight of its history, or is discouraged from the study of it by the desiccating professionalism (or unprofessionalism!) of its historians, is intellectually and perhaps politically amputated. But that history must be true history in the fullest sense.""
I always try to understand the author's angle, the lens they're looking through and what their ulterior motives might be. Loewen writes from a pretty unbiased point of view without the rhetoric of the Republican and Democratic parties that I get SO TIRED of hearing. He's not here to make you vote a certain way. He doles out harsh truth, but leaves praise where it's deserved in a voice that is more observant and analytical than emotional. And while the title of the book might sound cruel, he also spends a chapter trying to find an explanation WHY we're using these textbooks in the classroom and it's not just the fault of the teachers. There is a larger more political issue going on here that goes beyond the classroom. Prepare to take less pleasure in some of our national holidays...
**Also, the man's Notes section in the back of the book total just over 55 pages so if you want to take this reading further then you have plenty of references to look for.
Favorite Quotes: "Lying to children is a slippery slope. Once we have started sliding down it, how and when do we stop? Who decides when to lie? Which lies to tell? To what age group? As soon as we loosen the anchor of fact, of historical evidence, our history textboat is free to blow here and there, pointing first in one direction, then in another. If we obscure or omit facts because they make Columbus look bad, why not omit those that make the United States look bad? or the Mormon Church? or the state of Mississippi? This is the politicization of history. How do we decide what to teach in an American history course once authors have decided not to value the truth? If our history courses aren't based on fact anyway, why not tell one story to whites, another to blacks? Isn't Scott, Foresman already doing something like that when it puts out a "Lone Star" edition of "Land of Promise," tailoring the facts of history to suit (white) Texans?"
"Hugh Trevor-Roper, the dean of British historians, has written, "A nation that has lost sight of its history, or is discouraged from the study of it by the desiccating professionalism (or unprofessionalism!) of its historians, is intellectually and perhaps politically amputated. But that history must be true history in the fullest sense.""
The Author
Author Tidbit: James W. Loewen helped write a US history textbook called "Mississippi: Conflict and Change" in 1974. The textbook was not approved for use in the Mississippi school systems leading to a lawsuit Loewen vs. Turnipseed. This became a historic First Amendment case.
