Lies My Teacher Told Me

Every time this book comes up, it seems to be controversial. The impression I get is that the author, James Loewen, has a legitimate bone to pick about the use of school history curricula as forms of propaganda, and the falsehoods that are spread because of it. But he is apparently a little fast and loose with facts himself, in order to prove his own point.

In any case, this debate has started and fizzled out many times on various message boards I’ve seen on the net. But this book keeps coming up, and I feel that I should point out, as an evangelist of skepticism, that the book is probably not the slam dunk that people think it is. Unfortunately, I don’t exactly remember what the controversy was, and I don’t think it raged very hard in any case.

So, if you would, please, have the debate again, and I swear to God I’ll pay attention this time.

Thanks.

Well, if there was a debate here it is now hidden in the secret archives.
Here is my attempt to answer this question:
Lies James Loewen Told Me.

Maybe Green Bean found his copy and is ready to dispute the scholarship.

My main objection is to Schenkman, not Loewen. I said that clearly and reiterated it twice. I would be happy to provide examples, but I haven’t unpacked my office yet.

p.s. I’m female.

Loewen has written another book, Lies Across America : What Our Historic Sites Get Wrong.

Lies my teacher(s) told me:
[ul]
[li]The space shuttle lands on skis.[/li][li]Skylab’s orbit will not decay for a long time.[/li][li]Mercury is bigger than Pluto. No, Pluto is bigger than Mercury. No, …[/li][li]There is no basketball team called the Kings.[/li][li]There is no football team called the Bruins.[/li][li]My clearly anti-abortion Government class teacher had “no idea” that a film titled Assignment: Life, brought into the classroom by a Christian minister, would have an anti-abortion bias.[/li][/ul]

Bad teacher, no biscotti.

If you follow 2sense’s link, you will find a further link by Green Bean to this thread: History Books which, I believe, is the most “complete” discussion involving Loewen on this MB.

Basically, Loewen set out to deplore the way that history is taught, but his book has been picked up by many people as an actual text. As a history text, it fails, not because it is so often wrong (although he has some errors), but because he often oversimplifies the picture he draws. Given that the complex picture that he was trying to draw was of teaching history rather than of history itself, the challenges to his presentation of history can be classed as quibbling. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that.)

An example of a valid quibble (related to the one I mention in the earlier thread). He portrays Wilson as so zealously racist that it appears to a casual reader that Wilson actively and personally imposed many of the setbacks that blacks suffered during his tenure. A closer reading shows that Loewen used just enough qualifiers to keep his statements technically accurate that Wilson permitted those injustices to occur. (And Wilson should bear the responsibility of allowing that to happen.) However, that “first impression” (that Wilson actively pursued those policies) is what most readers will glean from the book.

Someone remarked on an earlier thread that the target of finding history too poorly taught was so obvious as to be a cheap shot. To that I would disagree. I see a lot of arguments come through this Forum that are based on a genuine misunderstanding of historical facts. We have a hard enough time coming to agreement when we agree on the same facts, differing on the reasons behind them. If we start with our facts in error, we can never arrive at valid agreements or with valid conclusions.

I haven’t read “Lies My Teacher Told Me,” but I can infer the essence of the book.

All I can say is, growing up in the Northeast and attending Catholic schools in the 1960s and 1970s, the “errors” and “biases” of school textbooks were entirely in the opposite direction. These books were clearly written by liberals, who hoped to sway children in THEIR direction… and to bolster the “self-esteem” of minority students.

My younger brother’s 5th grade history book spent 4 pages total on World War 2. A full 2 of those pages were devoted to the imprisonment of Japanese-Americans. I will never suggest that such a crime should be glossed over, but you’d get the impression, from THAT book, that American internment camps were THE big story of the 1940s!

I grant you, there are various pressure groups around this country, of every political persuasion. My hunch is, MOST textbook publishers are constantly trying to pander to one or more of those groups, and to put out a product that will offend as few pressure groups as possible (“play down Darwin, we have to sell this to the Bible Belt… be sure to devote a lot of time to Harriet Tubman, don’t want the NAACP on our case…”).

europe is a continent. YEAH RIGHT!

i know a library with a plaqe on it that says Lincoln was a democrat.

Dal Timgar

astorian:
Your inference is right on. That is the essence of the book.
The many examples given by Dr. Loewen are just commentary.

tomndebb:

Thanks for yet another thoughtful post.
I am one who uses the book as a text.
I find the examples it contains to be useful cites for pointing out historical misunderstandings.

I’m going to attack this book from a different angle. I disagree with the premis of the book. The author thinks that high school history texts should be less propaganda, and more detailed with the US’s history of race/class/religion conflicts.

I was in high school about 15 years ago, and such topics could never be brought up. The average students didn’t know even the basic facts about US/world history. I recently told a coworker that I was going on a trip to Canada, and the coworker responded, “canada? where’s that? across the ocean?”

Also, remember that these people are not adults. I once had one of those idealistic young teachers who decided to start a classroom debate on affrmative action. After a week of race related riots the teacher was transfered to another school. It literally took months for the black students and white students to start talking to each other again.

High school texts really should stick to material like…
Who was the first president of the USA?
Locate texas on a US map?
What decade was WW2 fought in?

Any textbook that is acceptable to all the parents of the USA is going to be a bland list of names and dates. Lets see, I’ll make a good exciting US history text, and then remove anything offensive to blacks, whites, indians, asians, christians, feminists, etc…

I say it’s high time high school chemistry textbooks gave equal time to the phlogiston theory. After all, the modern periodic table of the elements is just a theory, too. You can’t prove that a carbon atom has twelve electrons.

I recently read this book and was greatly moved by it.

The principle message of the book is that history in this country is largely taught from a single perspective, and that perspective is the one which provokes the least thought and discussion and the most blind patriotism. All you have to do is turn on the History Channel where “It Is All WW2, All the Time” to see this.

I believe that Mr. Loewen would be the first to state that his book should not be used as a textbook. As an auxilliary text to a well taught class, perhaps, but not as a main text.

The two points that I think should be raised in every History class are:

  1. The great acts of history were performed by real people. The Founding Fathers didn’t know that they would win. They didn’t feel a hand of destiny on their shoulders as our history texts imply. They were human beings, with some human failings, who were willing to risk a great deal for something they believed in. I find this approach to be empowering, it tells me that even though I am not as perfect as the mythic images of Washington or Lincoln that I can have an impact.

  2. Conversely, the horrid acts of history were performed by real people. Slavery was not instituted and perpetuated by people who were inherently evil (in general). We should not slide it under the rug and mask it with images like “Gone with the Wind” or “Song of the South”. We should hang it high on the wall as warning to ourselves and future generations of the atrocities that can be committed by good-hearted people in the name of complacency and economic self-interest. We tell the Germans that they must teach their students about the Holocaust, but we sugar-coat our own sins.

Just my two cents, thanks for listening.

Haha, Id love if you could get a picture of that.

Actually, labdude, Loewen generally calls for more readings of original sources. He does not actually call for a point of view. As he notes, the existing books already have a point of view: “The U.S. has become the greatest country in the world by simply drifting along without anyone making a tough decision and the mistakes that we might have made (e.g., slavery) were simply accidents that occurred and were corrected.”

You are right that far too many kids come away with an appalling ignorance of history. Turning history books into chronologies to be memorized won’t help that.

Consider a few instances of confusion by folks in the U.S.:

During the Yanqui go Home! protests that were more prevalent in Latin America 30 years ago, I often heard statements such as “It’s all communist inspired!” and “Why are they mad at us? We’ve never done anything to them!”

Perhaps if more people in the U.S. had been aware that the U. S. has sponsored over 80 military interventions in Latin America in the last 150 years, generally for the purpose of imposing authoritarian governments or dictatorships friendly to U.S. business, folks would have been less confused as to why they were angry (and why those nasty communists found it so easy to whip up antagonism).
Every time an affirmative action thread shows up, several people will post that their ancestors were European immigrants and so had no part in the suppression of blacks.

Even if AA is completely wrongheaded, we need to recognize that while the South was suppressing blacks using Jim Crow, the North was deliberately importing European immigrants to drive down the pay scales of labor–and force blacks out of the Northern labor market. No immigrant came here with the intention of hurting black people, but their arrival was the tool to maintain black subjugation for an additional 50 - 70 years.
We spent the better part of 60 years villifying the U.S.S.R. for wanting to “conquer the world.” Every attempt by the U.S.S.R. to make itself more secure was pointed out as an act of aggression. This ignores the fact that while they never invaded the U.S., the U.S. did invade the U.S.S.R.

Without in any way denying the philosophical goals of Trotsky and Lenin, and certainly without attempting to justify the horrors perpetrated by Stalin, a reading of actual events (the U.S.S.R. suffered three separate invasions in 22 years) indicates that conquering Eastern Europe and establishing the Warsaw Pact very likely had more to do with providing a buffer against invasion than it did a desire to “conquer” the world–especially after the first wave of Marxists had died off.
In other words, real historical events have led to the tensions and misunderstandings from which we still suffer. Knowing a list of dates for easily recognized events does nothing to help this country deal with the tensions among its citizens or with people from other countries.

Loewen’s point is that current history text books present none of this. He argues that reading actual history, rather than pablum text, will hold the students’ interest more while providing them with a better genuine understanding of their country and their world.

Is it any wonder that no one remembers any of this stuff, seeing as it is so boring? (which is the point of the book, really). First of all, there is a limited number of truly important facts to learn. We don’t have to learn about all our presidents. Second of all, a diet of dry facts is not history. History is trends, cause and effect, analysis. We should definately learn about trends in politics, like the trend of racism, the trend of class differences, the trend of different freedoms. We should learn the US is not always right. The government sometimes has to be forced into doing the right thing. These are all simple ideas that many students never learn. One high level idea like that is worth 100 facts we’ll never remember.

True American history cannot be reserved for the small segment of the population that is both college-educated AND took American history courses.

Overall, the book rang true to me - I certainly wasn’t interested in history after High School until people started suprising me with tidbits like how we were subverting democracy in South and Central America, trying to assassinate world leaders, vetoing human rights bills in the UN, etc. After initially thinking of those people as crackpots because no one ever taught me that the US did anything bad, I gradually discovered the ugly and quite complex truth. Not that the US is bad, or it’s good, but it acts in it’s own self-interest in foreign affairs, or in the self-interest of the powerful in both foreign and local affairs, and the government makes mistakes, and often doesn’t make any sense, etc - all of which is obvious stuff, but we never get taught about it.

Not that the book was all good. He said America is hurting third world countries because we export to them more than we import - a statement which ignores the mass of economic theory that contradicts it. Another time he gave as evidence to the conspiracy theory of MLK Jr’s assassination by saying basically that no country boy would be sophisticated enough to pull it off the assassination without outside help. Another time he actually implied that the Cubans killed Kennedy.

History, or any other subject doesn’t have to be acceptable to everyone, or even a majority. After all, a suprising number of Americans belive in Creationism, and a definite majority of Americans believe it should be taught side-by-side with Evolution in science classes (according to a CNN poll). But in science, truth is what matters, and Evolution is usually what solely what gets taught as fact. Why can’t it be that way in history?

A couple thoughts I had while reading this thread:

This reminded me of a letter I read recently written by Ben Franklin in which he advises a younger friend on marriage. Ben says that if a man does not want to marry and he wants to have sex (IIRC “sexual Commerce” was his term), he would fare better by choosing older women. Franklin then gives about eight reasons why older women are better than younger, ending with “they are so grateful!” Not exactly the image of Ben that one gets in school…

tomI don’t know if this is 100% accurate–was it really the USSR when we tried to intervene? But otherwise I think you are right on target.

Ah, but whose version of truth is it?

That was supposed to be:

tom: I don’t know…

I agree that history should be tought the way he suggest, but I don’t think it will ever be politically possible to do so.

Beware of anyone who claims to have “The Truth” about history. History comes in shades of gray, not black and white.