American History textbook that doesn't mention George Washington

[Wendell Wagner]

Someone claimed to me that there is an American History textbook (he was vague about what level it was used at) that doesn't mention George Washington (or at least gives him very little mention). This sounds to me like nonsense spread by people who don't like the fact that history books don't teach the exact same things they did in their time in school. Does anyone have a direct rebuttal to this assertion? If not, does anyone have access to an American History textbook that they can check quickly and tell me how much space is devoted to George Washington?

[bibliophage]

I remember reading about a history textbook (for 4th graders?) that gave something like 2 sentences to Geo. Wasington and 2 or 3 pages to Marilyn Monroe. I can't be sure where I read it, but it was probably either in _Lies_my_Teacher_Told_Me by a historian named Loewen (I don't remember the first name) or in the Wall Street Journal editorial pages.

[astorian]

Despite my right-wing nature, and my willingness to believe the worst of liberal academics, I'd be astonished if there were really elementary school history text books that never mention George Washington.

Not that weirdness doesn't creep into such texts- when my youngest brother was in grade school (over ten years ago), his American history book devoted 6 pages total to World War 2, and FOUR of those pages were devoted to the Japanese-Americans who were incarcerated during the war!

At the very least, even a Japanese Communist would admit that's a little disproportionate.

Now, that said, I recognize that most publishers are not ideologues. They just want to print what will make school districts happy. In some districts, that may mean painting American history as a Rainbow Coalition (exaggerating the importance of women in some areas, of blacks or Indians in others). But in the Deep South, and in regions where there are a lot of fundamentalist Christians, textbook publishers have shown themselves ready to knuckle under, and publish science and history books that treat Creationism as established fact.

There are so many pressure groups today, of all political stripes, and publishers are eager to pander to all of them, if there's enough money at stake.

[Green Bean]

It depends what kind of "American History" textbook it is.

A general "survey" text should certainly mention GW.

But a women's, labor, or black history textbook might not mention him.

So, Wendell, I agree with your theory that this is "nonsense spread by people who don't like the fact that history books don't teach the exact same things they did in their time in school," but for a slightly different reason:

There might well be textbooks that don't mention Washington and the critics could be using the "omission" of GW as ammunition in fighting the changes in the way history is being taught.

Remeber, too, in the historical profession, books are peer-reviewed. Writing a general textbook that leaves out Washington would be very bad for someone's career. So, it isn't only the publisher who decides what goes into the texts. The historians writing the texts have to worry about their reputations, too.

[Wendell Wagner]

I'm talking about a general American History textbook, not one concentrating on some small topic.

Bibliophage, I think you're quoting from someone who has heard the same legend as the person who told me this. I don't think it's James W. Loewen's _Lies My Teacher Told Me_, since I've read that. Besides, Loewen's point is that history textbooks are still pretty conservative.

What I need here is either direct proof or direct refutation of this statement. Either the name of the book that proves this statement (and somebody's statement that they've looked through the book for mentions of George Washington and can't find one) or somebody's statement that they've looked through many such textbooks and in every one there's substantial mention of George Washington.

Lacking that, if anyone has access to an American History textbook, can they look through it and tell me how prominently Washington is mentioned. Be sure to give the name and author of the book.

[ThisYearsGirl]

I know this isn't the answer to the question being asked, but when I was in a US History class sophomore year of high school, there were certain sections that the teachers were told to skip over to make room for the more "important" stuff. I remember missing the entire Spanish-American war, the reformation in the early 1800s (Henry David Thoreau, Dorthea Dix, and the like), the chapter before the Civil War (which made for a lot of confusion about the causes of the Civil War, and the years after reconstruction to the turn of the century. We spend more time on the 20th century than we did on the pre-European American, the 1500s, 1600s, 1700s, and 1800s conbined, which gave a lot of students an incredibaly skewed vision of American history. For example, we spent ten minutes on Lewis and Clark, and two days on Al Capone.


------------------
"I need the biggest seed bell you have. . . no, that's too big."--Hans Moleman

[Sofa King]

Okay, I'll put my johnson on the chopping block and say it: Washington is a little overrated.

His appointment as General-in-Chief was almost inevitable, as he was practically the only pro-revolutionary man in America who had actually exercised independent command, in two failed campaigns during the French and Indian/Seven Years war. His theory during the Revolution was sound, and stalwart, but the concept of keeping an army-in-being was not original, or even contrary to the military mindset at the time. The fact that practically noone else in America at the time agreed with him is telling: I think it can be convincingly argued that the irregular tactics and strategic outlook of Nathaniel Greene in the south proved to be of at least equal importance.

It was the entry of a disciplined, experienced French army and navy into the American war which sealed Britains fate. Washington's actual victories, few and mostly irregular in nature, were acts of desperation spawned from the impending dissolution of his army--it was only when absolutely forced into it by external circumstance that Washington displayed the audacity (and admittedly, brilliance) he is now known for.

Washington did not sign the Declaration of Independence. He did not play an active role in the construction of the Articles of Confederation or the Constitution. He did thwart a potential coup de tat by disgruntled former officers, but this act was once again an example of his heroic status, a status which has only grown to this day. He ran essentially unopposed for President (even Adams hoped he would win) primarily on his deified status. It is unquestionable that his strength of personality and enormous stature in the eyes of the American people once again left him uniquely qualified for the job at the time, but he retired as President to jeering catcalls from disaffected citizens who were very unhappy with the few decisions he had actually made in office.

In summary, Washington justly deserves the adulation he receives, but in point of fact is actual contribution to our nation is primarily by nature of circumstance. He was a hero when we needed a hero, and a leader when we needed a universally acceptable leader. But his actual contribution to the formation of the United States is probably somewhat less than the activities of his contemporaries; our country owes more to Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton and Paine for our country as it is than we do to Washington, with one shining exception: he was the right person for the job when the job needed to be done.

[funneefarmer]

From a speech regarding support for bill H.R. 1363...

Press Release (http://www.house.gov/bartlett/pr990406.html)

"Congressman Bartlett also discussed how the treatment of George Washington in public school textbooks has been radically diminished in recent decades. He presented as examples two U.S. history books used in the fourth grade in Virginia public schools. An edition first published in 1956 and revised in 1964 contains ten times more pages devoted to Washington than a similar history text book published in 1991.

"It's incredible to me that the 1991 edition has only one page in its biographical index -- page 132 -- with a mention of George Washington," said Congressman Bartlett. "How can we expect our children to know about, let alone appreciate and understand the history and the principles of our country and our government if our public school text books virtually ignore George Washington?" "

[Green Bean]

Originally posted by Wendell Wagner:
I'm talking about a general American History textbook, not one concentrating on some small topic.
Women's history, labor history, and black history are hardly "small" topics.


Lacking that, if anyone has access to an American History textbook, can they look through it and tell me how prominently Washington is mentioned. Be sure to give the name and author of the book.


Now, let's see...I have 5 state-of-the-art, 1999 or 2000 published, college-level general history texts on my shelf at the moment.

I will look in the one that is easiest to reach:

Berkin, Carol, et. al. Making America: A History of the United States. Second Edition. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1999.

For the record, this is a very standard history text that is widely used. If you want particular figures on HOW widely used it is, I can easily find out.

This is the index entry under Washington, George (p.I-47):

Washington, George, 148, 180; deism and, 99; French and Indian War and, 110; on Intolerable Acts, 134; as Continental Army Commander, 138, 151; Revolutionary battles in North and, 152-154; at Valley Froge, 156-158; Society of the Cincinnatti and, 168; slaves freed by, 173; and strong government, 190, 191; constitutional convention and, 194; Constitution and, 197; election as president, 197-198; in factions, 200; French Revolution and, 203; second term of, 203; farewell of, 207-208; on aliiances, 634. see alsoAmerican Revolution

As you can see, George Washington is hardly neglected. Now, if you want me to get into the historiography of this matter, I'd be glad to.

And I agree with Sofa King's last paragraph. Washington was incredibly important, especially as a symbolic figure that the Revolutionaries/Early Nationals could rally 'round. But, if you really want to teach students about the founding principles of the United States, you'd be better off studying Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, Hamilton, Adams, and the rest of the "framers." Good old George was vital in our earliest years, but it was the work of Jefferson and the rest that has kept us together for 209 years.

[Wendell Wagner]

Thanks, Grean Bean. "Small" was perhaps an ill-chosen word. All I meant to say was that I was talking about American History textbooks that were putatively about the whole subject, not about some more specific subject.

Does anybody have access to a high school or elementary school text?

[Green Bean]

Fair 'nuff!

[Ursa Major]

I teach 11th grade US History, which is devoted to 1865-present. The index to our text (The Americans: Reconstruction through the 20th Century), which also confines itself to those years, shows Geo. Washington mentioned on at least 22 pages. This is a man who died 65 years before the earliest era the text covers.

Marilyn Monroe has one mention in a footnote on page 775.

[bibliophage]

I'm sure I didn't just hear about the Marilyn Monroe / Geo. Washington ratio on the grapevine. It was from a reputable source (magazine, newspaper, news broadcast, book). I remember a 60 Minutes report, maybe in September, 1999, that dealt with the shortcomings of textbooks, but I think that was mostly about science books.

[Green Bean]

Marilyn Monroe is not listed in Loewen's index, BTW.

You know, I am always suspicious of claims such as the Monroe/Washington ratio. It sounds horrifying, but there is obviously more to the story.

(The Monroe/Washington Ratio sounds like some elaborate formula the founding fathers came up with to figure out the tariff or something...)

[Little Nemo]

I'll agree with Sofa King that Washington was probably overemphasized in most earlier textbooks. Even in his own lifetime, Washington served predominantly as a symbol. Others like Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Madison, and Hamilton have more biased images because they were more active in the political issues of the day. Washington basically chose to remain "above" politics which helped the country at a time when a impartial figure was needed for all Americans to rally around. But without the other men who worked on the nuts and bolts of building the country, there wouldn't have been a nation for Washington to lead.

[tomndebb]

Sofa King:But his actual contribution to the formation of the United States is probably somewhat less than the activities of his contemporaries; our country owes more to Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton and Paine for our country as it is than we do to Washington, with one shining exception: he was the right person for the job when the job needed to be done.
I would actually turn that completely around. Washington was clearly not a brilliant thinker or a lofty visionary who could communicate the most moving ideals. For this reason, his treatment in general history books tends to leave the average student wondering what all the fuss was about.

However, consider that he was "the right person for the job when the job needed to be done." Who else could have held the raggle-taggle Continental army together through successive years of defeat? (I have pointed out that we only achieved independence because of the intervention of France and Spain on several occasions, on this MB, but there would have been no army for the French to "aid" had Washington failed to hold it together.) Who else had the resolution to make himself the largest target for King George's armies following the pretty words that Jefferson penned? Who else had the charisma to keep so many other officers working together despite constant fierce personal feuds and ongoing attempts to grab the glory away from their peers?

This following statement is simply incorrect:He did not play an active role in the construction of . . . the Constitution.Most of the journals kept at the time indicate that without his presence to hold the convention together for three months, it would have simply dissolved on multiple occasions.

I think we make a mistake when we elevate "idea" men above mere "doers." Washington probably contributed no great idea to the founding of this country beyond the role model provided by his insistence that he return to private life after serving as president. Without his presence at the right places at the right time, however, it is quite possible that this country would not exist. I will not make the opposite error of claiming that a group of practical but disgruntled merchants and farmers would have laid the ideals to which this country constantly (or intermittently) strives. Elevating Washington should not be seen as downplaying the roles of Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, and company. I believe that most of our history texts fail Washington not in giving him too few pages, but by not explaining the nature of his contribution.

------------------
Tom~

[evilbeth]

I don't have an answer to the OP (sorry Wendall) but I would just like to say that my personal experience with junior high, high school and even college general American history textbooks is completely contrary to the one proposed by the OP.

In fact, I was a junior in college and taking a 20th century history class before I knew any information about the causes of the Vietnam War. I have yet to have a history class that covers the Korean War.

Most of our time in history class from elementary to present has been spent on the years 1492-1900. (With plenty of George Washington and no Marilyn Monroe.) Occasionally, I have had a class that touched on WWI and WWII. I have never had any class discussion on the Holocaust.

Now, lest you think that I went to an impoverished, rural school, I attended the same school from fourth grade until I graduated from high school. The school has a long-standing reputation for academic excellence. The school baosts trophies from many different types of academic competitions. (Nothing from any kind of history competition though, I assure you!)

My point behind all this is that I don't think my experience is extremely rare.

------------------
"You don't have insurance? Well, just have a seat and someone will be with you after you die." --Yes, another quality sig custom created by Wally!

A Jesusfied sig: Next time I covet thine opinion, I'll ask for it!

[astorian]

To suggest that George Washington has been "overemphasized" is absurd. That so many people are prepared to say something this idiotic is a sign that we take our current political system far too much for granted.

In 1789, government by/of/for the people was a brand new, utterly untested concept that MOST intelligent people around the world expected to collapse into anarchy, or evolve into a new sort of tyranny. Do you really think the success of the new republic was a sure thing? George Washington kept 13 disparate (often squabbling) colonies together, and built them into a functioning nation. There was absolutely NOBODY else who could have done that! Quick- name ONE other man who could have earned and maintained the loyalty of John Adams AND Thomas Jefferson, of Aaron Burr AND Alexander Hamilton?

James Madison wrote the Constitution... but it would never have been ratified if George Washington hadn't endorsed it. THomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence... but the USA wouldn't have stayed independent long if Washington hadn't built a government capable of paying its debts and maintaining order.

Moreover, MOST men in Washington's position would have seized and kept absolute power forever (all the while, expanding his own power). That's what revolutionary leaders from Napoleon to Castro to RObert Mugabe have done. George Washington, on the other hand, did his duty by his country, then stepped aside. Only in the United States has a revolution led to a smooth transition of power, and to a functioning democratic republic, rather than to an autocracy.

Don't kid yourself- Washington WAS the father of his country.

[Green Bean]

But, Astorian, you just reinforced the point that you were arguing against!

[Otto]

I can understand why some people would be upset that George Washington rates less ink than Marilyn Monroe, but she deserves her place in history too. She did after all come up with a little thing called the Monroe Doctrine.

[Green Bean]

James Monroe deserves a place in the history books, too. After all, he looked so fetching in a low-cut gown!

[bibliophage]

After hours of tireless research, I can report where I heard about the Marilyn Monroe / George Washington ratio. It wasn't 60 Minutes, but ABC's 20/20 in a report filed by Sam Donaldson on April 2, 1999. I don't know the name of the book, but it's supposed to be a high school history book that has about 6 lines about Washington and 6.5 pages about Marilyn Monroe. The interview was with self-appointed textbook police Mel and Norma Gabler, email address txtbkrevws@aol.com
ref. http://www.afaga.org/BN-Textbooks.htm

[Green Bean]

Thanks for the link.

But we still don't know which textbook it is, or who the Gablers are. And 20/20 is hardly a trustworty source.

I still think that there has to be more to the story.

[Sofa King]

I knew I was wading into hot water when I got into this. Tomndeb, and astorian, you are both correct in pointing out that Washington did play a central role in the formation of the Constitution. I was thinking more of the construction of the document rather than its actual passage, which of course is more important.

I suppose I am a little bit guilty of endorsing the premise that in times of crisis, there is an enormous demand for heroic greatness that is always filled, no matter what the actual qualities of the chosen leader. At least, it would seem, in those endeavors which are successful enough to write about. The deeds, successes and failures of the Haile Selasses, Robert E. Lees, and George Washingtons of history receive far less attention than the stature they are accorded.

It is my contention that revolutionary situations always produce a great leader, whether or not that leader is truly great. If you want a very quick breakdown of how America was formed, one need look no farther than George Washington--he was at the very center of it. If you want to examine the mechanics of how and why America is the way it is, one needs to look to his contemporaries. I don't think that diminishes the status Washington is rightly given at all; it simply widens the focus to include others who were highly instrumental in the formation of our nation.

[Surgoshan]

Wait a minute. We had a war in Korea? I heard about this 'Vietnam' skirmish. But Korea? When was this?

No, seriously. I'm a freshman in college who, despite A's in history, has NO knowledge of the Korean war.

But I know where George Washington lived, his wife's name, what years he was President, an accurate accounting of his role in the Constitutional Congress, how he set the model for the presidency... I could go on for a while there.

------------------
I sold my soul to Satan for a dollar. I got it in the mail.

[Wendell Wagner]

evilbeth writes:

> I don't have an answer to the OP (sorry
> Wendall) but I would just like to say that
> my personal experience with junior high,
> high school and even college general
> American history textbooks is completely
> contrary to the one proposed by the OP.

Before someone quotes this in order to claim that *I* was the one saying that there is an American History textbook which doesn't mention, let me repeat that I believe no such thing. I was looking for a rebuttal to someone else that said this. Sorry to get picky about this, since I don't think you meant to say that, evilbeth, but unless I quash even the slightest hint that I would assert such a thing, someone is going to misinterpret your statement and misquote me.

[John Corrado]

Nothing to contribute OP-wise: I've no information regarding such a mis-balanced textbook, but just because I've never seen a purple cow doesn't mean there ain't one...

But as for the rapidly expanding tangent regarding 'what we learned in American History': speaking as someone who studied to be a History teacher for a while, every teacher has a lot of latitude regarding what they teach. There are specific 'items' that must be covered, but as there aren't any standardized tests to meet with (as there are in English and math), it's completely up to the teacher as to how intently to cover any of those points. End result- the student walk out of the class with very detailed knowledge of some parts of AH, with very sketchy (if any) knowledge of the rest, all dependent upon the teacher's personal passions, his/her own understanding of the events, and whatever time constraints he/she faces ("Well, we've just finished WW2 and there's only three days left in the semester, so we'll just whiz-bang straight through everything afterwards.")

After my high-school AH class, I had deep knowledge of the Cold War, especially Vietnam and JFK's assassination (my teacher actually showed us the Zapruder film!), but if you mentioned 'Shiloh' or 'Antietam' to me, I would have just stared blankly at you.

------------------
JMCJ

Give to Radiskull!

[waterj2]

Hell, my HS US History class entirely skipped over the War of 1812. Slavery was covered in depth, however. Of course, that was just because my teacher was an idiot, not because of the curriculum. I swear I knew more about history than this guy, not that it really mattered, since all we did was discuss current events.

[paintsvillecom]

Originally posted by Green Bean:
But we still don't know which textbook it is, or who the Gablers are. And 20/20 is hardly a trustworty source.

Mel and Norma Gabler are right-wing critics of modern education. On their website they claim, "We review public school textbooks from a conservative, Christian perspective." Their website is http://www.textbookreviews.org/ . They are also the primary source for the 20/20 piece, as they come out with a list of factual errors each year.

[even sven]

There is one test that a fair amount of people are taught to...the US History Advanced Placement test. In my Junior year of high school the usual AP teacher (who taught real history and not just names and dates...he made people who wanted to prep for the narrow minded AP test study in after-school workshops) left and we got stuck with a teacher that told us about nothing but elections and wars. One of the books we used actually refered to native americans as "savages"! We spent the four weeks of school left after the AP test on the twentieth century. I came out not having learned a thing, but I am sure that right wing education critics would have approved of him. Anyway...he got sick of teaching in a poor racially diverse school and took a job at a rich white school the next year. The teacher who replaced him used a variety of texts with different viewpoints, includeing the People's History of the United States (a rather liberal look at history). How I wish I was in that class! I guess what I am doing is confirming that there is a lot of room for teachers to use their own teaching style, but some things (like AP tests) limit it.

[bibliophage]

I received this e-mail from someone who works with the people who were interviewed on 20/20 in answer to a request I sent for information.

"The book you are discussing is a fifth grade text, Search for Freedom:
America and Its People by William Jay Jacobs, published by The Macmillan
Company, and copyrighted in 1973 by Benziger, Inc. Our organization reviewed
it when it was submitted for Texas adoption, but Texas rejected the book.

"Pages 384-390 covered Marilyn Monroe (about 39 lines per page). She was also
mentioned on p. 348 , 4 lines. The coverage included: Her childhood, time
in an orphanage, boys noticing how pretty she was, married at 16, worked as a
model, how she got into the movies and became a star, her marriages, her
unhappiness, her dog, her death from sleeping pills. One of the pupil
questions was "What problems did Marilyn have in her marriage to Arthur
Miller? What did she seem to enjoy most about being his wife?"

"In the same book, George Washington is mentioned briefly on the following
pages:
p. 14, a four-line question -- "... Was Washington a shaper of events or was
he shaped by them?"
p. 18, about one line -- "Who built America? ... George Washington ...."
p. 82, four lines -- "What the colonists did have was a great leader --
George Washington .... General Washington trapped a large British army at
Yorktown."
p. 85, one line -- "George Washington was elected the first president."
p. 107, ten lines -- "George Washington was elected its first president. He
chose as secretary of the treasury his former assistant in the Revolutionary
War .... General Washington treated Hamilton more like a son ..... Yet when
Washington died, in 1799, Hamilton said only that the general had been 'very
useful' to him. ..."
p. 108, one line -- "... the twelve years that George Washington and John
Adams were presidents of the United States."

"I have the book in front of me as I write this.

"Hope this helps,

"Judy Frey
"Staff member
"the MEL GABLERs
"Educational Research Analysts
"Longview, Texas"


Apparently the book really does exist. And from the title, it appears as if it was intended to be a general American-history textbook, and not specific to the history of women, or the history of the entertainment industry.


------------------
Work is the curse of the drinking classes. (Oscar Wilde)

[bibliophage]

The Marilyn Monroe book may just be an Urban Legend after all. When I searched in the Library of Congress catalog, I could not find the title and author I was given ("Search for Freedom: America and its people" by William Jay Jacobs). There are 37 books by this author (all of them about hisotry), but this title isn't among them. The title isn't at Amazon either.

[Wendell Wagner]

There's a copy of the book for sale at abebooks.com.

[G.B.H. Hornswoggler]

So an obscure, never-adopted (at least in Texas) textbook from 1973 gives more space to Marilyn than to Georgy, is that what we've figured out? (And copies of it are very hard to find, which implies that it was never printed in great numbers.)

Look like a bad book that was hardly used to me. (And I do, as always, revel in the ability of the massed Teeming Millions to ferret out any shred of evidence, no matter how small and silly.)


------------------
I'm your only friend
I'm not your only friend
But I'm a little glowing friend
But really I'm not actually your friend
But I am

[Wendell Wagner]

The annoying thing is that Mel Gabler has made his whole career by mentioning this book whenever someone asks him why his group lobbies state boards of education. What his group has been raising money on for years is the claim that unless they are there to scream at the board every single time they vote on books, books like this one (which never got adopted and went out of print 27 years ago) will be adopted by the board.

[Wendell Wagner]

You're probably wondering why I revived a five-year-old thread. Well, a columnist in _USA Today_ revived this story about the history book mentioning Monroe a lot but Washington little. (It's on page 13A on March 15th, in the column by Kathleen Parker.) I've written a letter to the editor about why this story is deceptive, using the facts discovered in this thread.

[Triskadecamus]

Well, Wendell, I asked the nearest kid, a tenth grader of my acquaintance about how much his text books in elementary and high school mentioned about George Washington.

He said, "Who?" :rolleyes: :b

So good to know that children are taught te essentials! :)

Tris

[Wendell Wagner]

So did you ask this kid what his history books did cover? Is this really a matter of history books not mentioning Washington, or is it a matter of someone determined to forget everything he ever learned in school? Were all those people who seem to have never learned anything about any subject who appear in the "Jaywalking" interviews really not taught anything, or have they just decided to forget everything from school?

[AskNott]

My own experience of history in school is this: Teachers planned their time poorly, so that we rushed through WW II in two weeks. We never learned who Joe McCarthy was. The Korean War took about half an hour. I'm still not clear on what it was about, or why we still have troops there. I popped out of high school in 1967, ignorant of the things that had shaped my parents' lives.

The Gablers are prominent in US education. They terrify the school authorities in Texas, a very big state. School book publishers have to make money, and they can't afford to offer a Texas edition and a rest-of-the-US edition, so the whole country uses the Gabler editions.