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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
From a speech regarding support for bill H.R. 1363…
"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?” "
Women’s history, labor history, and black history are hardly “small” topics.
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.
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?
Fair 'nuff!
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.
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.
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…)
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.
Sofa King:
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:
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~
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!
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.
But, Astorian, you just reinforced the point that you were arguing against!
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.