history books

[MaC]

I can think of at least five things wrong with History books

1.They are mostly written by liberals.  This is one area where the left has blatant bias over the right.  They are always big on using PC terms, defining progressive movements and supporting the more liberal figures more than others.

2.They are statistics books.  They name percentages, dates and figures more than they get to the facts of what's going on at a certain time

3.They leave out a LOT.  Does anybody know what happened before the Civil war, but after the Revolution from what they've read from history books in high school?  How 'bout that Progressive Era. Maybe, but usually not a whole lot.  And the teachers RARELY get to anything past Carter.  Most of the 1945-present never ever teach anything about Reagan, Clinton, or Bush and son.

4.People are idolized.  Let's see Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves and won the civil war and he's the greatest.  FDR got us out of the Depression with his alphabet soup programs, and JFK died on the cross for our sins.  

5.They rarely ever present the other side of things.  Who the hell are you (to point out the truth) and say that Lincoln destroyed civil libeties and underminded states rights at the expense of helping slaves, or that FDRs programs really did nothing or that JFK didn't live in office long enough to get much done?

6.Wars are always great because we always win them.
(this is why Vietnam is lightly brought up, if at all)

7.The worst part.  Children are brought up being taught and believing that big government is good.  The government has helped us in this way and that.  Teachers help the students appreciate this social program or how it was good for the current president to get involved in this thing or the other.

Perhaps I am overexaggerating, but this is the general tone in which history as information is presented.  This is why I would be very reluctant to ever send my kids to a public school.  It is the scariest part about a schools ciriculum.

[Beet]

I can think of at least five things wrong with History books

1.They are mostly written by liberals.  This is one area where the left has blatant bias over the right.  They are always big on using PC terms, defining progressive movements and supporting the more liberal figures more than others.

2.They are statistics books.  They name percentages, dates and figures more than they get to the facts of what's going on at a certain time

3.They leave out a LOT.  Does anybody know what happened before the Civil war, but after the Revolution from what they've read from history books in high school?  How 'bout that Progressive Era. Maybe, but usually not a whole lot.  And the teachers RARELY get to anything past Carter.  Most of the 1945-present never ever teach anything about Reagan, Clinton, or Bush and son.

4.People are idolized.  Let's see Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves and won the civil war and he's the greatest.  FDR got us out of the Depression with his alphabet soup programs, and JFK died on the cross for our sins.  

5.They rarely ever present the other side of things.  Who the hell are you (to point out the truth) and say that Lincoln destroyed civil libeties and underminded states rights at the expense of helping slaves, or that FDRs programs really did nothing or that JFK didn't live in office long enough to get much done?

6.Wars are always great because we always win them.
(this is why Vietnam is lightly brought up, if at all)

7.The worst part.  Children are brought up being taught and believing that big government is good.  The government has helped us in this way and that.  Teachers help the students appreciate this social program or how it was good for the current president to get involved in this thing or the other.

Perhaps I am overexaggerating, but this is the general tone in which history as information is presented.  This is why I would be very reluctant to ever send my kids to a public school.  It is the scariest part about a schools ciriculum.

I agree with all those complaints. I don't think you're exaggerating much. One additional thing:

8. The textbooks talk down to you. They read like your grandfather telling you a story, only you are about 8 years old. Everything is presented in the most simplistic terms, and anything remotely controversial is avoided like the plague.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I can think of at least five things wrong with History books

1.They are mostly written by liberals.  This is one area where the left has blatant bias over the right.  They are always big on using PC terms, defining progressive movements and supporting the more liberal figures more than others.

Not true. They are written so that they can be approved by the major states, particularly Texas. This one conservative couple has a lot of say in which books are approved there.  They actually said they're against books that make you think. Evolution is out, memorizing lots of useless facts is in.

[??????????]

I can think of at least five things wrong with History books

1.They are mostly written by liberals.  This is one area where the left has blatant bias over the right.  They are always big on using PC terms, defining progressive movements and supporting the more liberal figures more than others.

2.They are statistics books.  They name percentages, dates and figures more than they get to the facts of what's going on at a certain time

3.They leave out a LOT.  Does anybody know what happened before the Civil war, but after the Revolution from what they've read from history books in high school?  How 'bout that Progressive Era. Maybe, but usually not a whole lot.  And the teachers RARELY get to anything past Carter.  Most of the 1945-present never ever teach anything about Reagan, Clinton, or Bush and son.

4.People are idolized.  Let's see Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves and won the civil war and he's the greatest.  FDR got us out of the Depression with his alphabet soup programs, and JFK died on the cross for our sins. 

5.They rarely ever present the other side of things.  Who the hell are you (to point out the truth) and say that Lincoln destroyed civil libeties and underminded states rights at the expense of helping slaves, or that FDRs programs really did nothing or that JFK didn't live in office long enough to get much done?

6.Wars are always great because we always win them.
(this is why Vietnam is lightly brought up, if at all)

7.The worst part.  Children are brought up being taught and believing that big government is good.  The government has helped us in this way and that.  Teachers help the students appreciate this social program or how it was good for the current president to get involved in this thing or the other.

Perhaps I am overexaggerating, but this is the general tone in which history as information is presented.  This is why I would be very reluctant to ever send my kids to a public school.  It is the scariest part about a schools ciriculum.

Hit the nail on the head again, as usual.

[Joe Republic]

Of course history books are biased and horribly so.

But I expect we would disagree on exactly how they are biased.

Well maybe. But I know many civil war historians, both nothern and southern biased who readily admit that school hisotry books have a terrible northern bias. One which is usually beyond acceptable.

I agree there.  Bias of any kind in a history book is a terrible thing, as its only a small step down from rewriting history completely.

[angus]

Of course history books are biased and horribly so.

But I expect we would disagree on exactly how they are biased.

my guess is that you would not.  seriously.  it'd look superficially like disagreement, but in the end you'd agree that books published in Moscow had an anti-american bias, and books published in Boston had a pro-american bias.  Now, the fine print is that pro-american bias might not bother the nationalistic republican, but in the period of the 1860s some folks think the US was the "bad guys" and that stretch of pro-american bias divides even the republicans, who are otherwise fairly comfortable with the pro-american bias.   

and yes, Lincoln and Roosevelt are the pillars of moral fortitude, respectively, for the Repbulicans and the Democrats.  Truth be told, they were authoritarian and knuckleheaded.  Quite overrated.  Both.  But most folks can't hold two things in their mind at once.  I don't know why, but sadly that's the case.  Thus critical thinking goes out of fashion and is replaced by political correctness.  Recession:  bad.  Recovery:  good.  Me like fire.  pretty.  mmmmm. 

[opebo]

Of course history books are biased and horribly so.

But I expect we would disagree on exactly how they are biased.

my guess is that you would not.  seriously.  it'd look superficially like disagreement, but in the end you'd agree that books published in Moscow had an anti-american bias, and books published in Boston had a pro-american bias.  Now, the fine print is that pro-american bias might not bother the nationalistic republican, but in the period of the 1860s some folks think the US was the "bad guys" and that stretch of pro-american bias divides even the republicans, who are otherwise fairly comfortable with the pro-american bias.   

and yes, Lincoln and Roosevelt are the pillars of moral fortitude, respectively, for the Repbulicans and the Democrats.  Truth be told, they were authoritarian and knuckleheaded.  Quite overrated.  Both.  But most folks can't hold two things in their mind at once.  I don't know why, but sadly that's the case.  Thus critical thinking goes out of fashion and is replaced by political correctness.  Recession:  bad.  Recovery:  good.  Me like fire.  pretty.  mmmmm. 

The biggest impediment to critical thinking is nationalism.  Well, except for religion.  Same thing really.  American nationalists are some of the most out-of-touch with reality people on the planet.  Either that or masochists.

[ATFFL]

Of course history books are biased and horribly so.

But I expect we would disagree on exactly how they are biased.

Well maybe. But I know many civil war historians, both nothern and southern biased who readily admit that school hisotry books have a terrible northern bias. One which is usually beyond acceptable.

I agree there.  Bias of any kind in a history book is a terrible thing, as its only a small step down from rewriting history completely.

Having recently had the pleasure of sitting on a text book board for a class which will focus solely on the Civil War and the events that lead up to it and the events that followed it I feel qualified to discuss this.

There are 2 major schools of thought.  The first says the north was trying to help out the poor, backwards hicks in the south who were being oppressed by the Plantation owners when the evil Plantation owners (who all owned slaves and used them to keep poor whites from earning a living) started a revolution for no reason and convinced the poor, stupid hicks it was all about something called States Rights.  The North triumphed in the end due to the foresight to develop industry and the courage of a few noble freed slaves who took up arms and liberated their enslaved brethren in the South.

The second says that the South was sitting around not bothering anyone except trying to get more industry and railroads built.  This caused Lincoln to send Sherman to burn Atlanta to the ground sparking war.  Everyone in the South supported the Confederacy with every fiber of their beings, including the vast majority of slaves, who had a pretty good life, all in all.  The South lost because, well, we are not to sure but it might have had something to do with Grant selling his soul, the book was not to clear on this point.

No, these are not exaggerations.  The second did have Sherman's March to the Sea BEFORE Ft. Sumter or any other battle.  It also had a chapter on how good a slave had it as compared to the work the Plantation owners did.  The first did pretend that there was no other cause for the war than the slavery issue and spent several chapters detailing the Negro Divisions.

[TexasPatriot2024]

ME and TN2024 have the same history class (yeah sounds like hell for some people right?) but our teacher makes a big deal about stretching gender roles for every time period. Im sorry but molly pitcher did not win the American Revolution, she served water to men and yes maybe she fired a cannon but thats debatable. As for the actualy book, i dont read it as much as a look at the pictures, i will be honest... sad thing is i have a 104% test average so its not hurting me too much

[phk]

Books were fairly interesting, sometimes a bit shallow and too overly PC.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

History should not be taught as a seperate subject.  Without context, it is only meaningless info.   What we should have instead of a single year long US History course is one semester courses on US Economics, US Politics, and US Culture.

[Bono]

They're a good example of why the education system needs to be fully privatized.

[angus]

Of course history books are biased and horribly so.

But I expect we would disagree on exactly how they are biased.

my guess is that you would not.  seriously.  it'd look superficially like disagreement, but in the end you'd agree that books published in Moscow had an anti-american bias, and books published in Boston had a pro-american bias.  Now, the fine print is that pro-american bias might not bother the nationalistic republican, but in the period of the 1860s some folks think the US was the "bad guys" and that stretch of pro-american bias divides even the republicans, who are otherwise fairly comfortable with the pro-american bias.   

and yes, Lincoln and Roosevelt are the pillars of moral fortitude, respectively, for the Repbulicans and the Democrats.  Truth be told, they were authoritarian and knuckleheaded.  Quite overrated.  Both.  But most folks can't hold two things in their mind at once.  I don't know why, but sadly that's the case.  Thus critical thinking goes out of fashion and is replaced by political correctness.  Recession:  bad.  Recovery:  good.  Me like fire.  pretty.  mmmmm. 

The biggest impediment to critical thinking is nationalism.  Well, except for religion.  Same thing really.  American nationalists are some of the most out-of-touch with reality people on the planet.  Either that or masochists.

hmm.  I hadn't thought of that.  I'm not sure I agree that abject nationalism is the biggest impediment (or even an impediment at all) but it's interesting food for thought.  Be careful not to confuse Nationalism with Chauvinism or Imperialism.