Rating: 
Summary: revisionist U.S. history and the sociology of history
Review: I found this book fascinating: partly for the great amount of historical information that despite my liberal education I had missed; partly for the author's quite convincing explanations of why high school history textbooks are so poor; and mostly for the once again convincing explanations of why the recent past is simply not covered in history classes. The Vietnam War and why it is left out is covered at length in the book. Second wave feminism is another topic of incredible importance to youth today, and yet it is not in the curriculum except in gender studies; Professor Loewen doesn't make as much of this issue, but it is a good starting point. Well worth reading.
Rating:
Summary: Great Read!
Review: The first several chapters of this book were great! As a historian, I cringe every time I meet a high school student who has memorized their history text as gospel. Loewen presents the history of our nation with harsh realism. My only negative comments about this book (with regards to History) is that the author really becomes a "sociologist" in the last several chapters, and the tone of the book changes from a critism of history texts and teachings, to a criticism of the society at the time. Whenever you are studying history you have to keep in mind that today's ideals are NOT yesterday's ideals. He only points this out once in the entire novel. In short, a great book, but it gets rather preachy toward the end!
Rating: 
Summary: Eye opening even for a history major
Review: I read a critical take from some yahoo who found it unpatriotic. What a stupid analysis! If you only love the make-believe America, you don't love the real thing. (Duh!) And this book faults the textbooks for ignoring the good as well as the bad! In particular, it does a great job with Lincoln and the fact that antiracism was, for a time, stronger than racism. Look- this stuff is true. I happen to believe that our country is something special, but ignoring the terrible things in our history is dishonest. And every major high school text book does ignore the terrible things and is dishonest. The nature of that dishonesty has real implications for our future. Do you want education or indoctrination? Do you want sheep or citizens? The right wingers who push these horrible, bland, boring texts want indoctrination- much like Lenin did in the Soviet Union. I think our kids can handle the truth.
Rating:
Summary: A MUST for parents and educators.
Review: In *Lies My Teacher Told Me*, sociologist James W. Loewen looks at twelve popular American history textbooks used in public high schools today and concludes that they are inexcusably inaccurate and biased. He shows that, in addition to their being sloppy and error-prone due to incompetence, textbooks oversimplify historical facts and causes, obscure the process by which historical interpretations are made and revised over time, perpetuate national myths and even willfully lie. Often, Loewen reveals, this is done in the service of promoting blind patriotism in students or in capitulation to various interest groups and other pressures that work to undermine the professionalism and integrity of the textbook industry itself. A multitude of examples from actual textbooks used today will likely disabuse many lay readers--including many high school teachers, according to cited studies of their expertise in their own field--of cherished but wrong beliefs. Some readers will object to Loewen's obvious "liberal bias." There is a case to be made for this. I, for one, would like to see a deconstruction of textbooks' pervasive anti-capitalistic mentality. Is it honest history, for example, to mention the antitrust suit against Standard Oil but not to mention the fact that its business practices did not harm consumers but benefited them? Or that many of the reforms of the Progressive Era--the Meat Inspection Act and the Pure Food and Drug Act, to name but two--were lobbied for by "big business" (appropriate here, but what a loaded term!) to throttle their competitors? Or that there is more than one theory of the causes of the Great Depression--and that Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal only prolonged it? But, no matter. Such criticisms are beside the point. False and careless statements like "President Truman 'easily settled' the Korean War by dropping the atomic bomb"--a real example from a textbook--are simply not open to dispute on grounds of ideology. And while some of Loewen's other examples of textbook distortion (or his proposed remedies) are questionable, enough are valid that he makes his general case. All of us, liberals, conservatives or otherwise, should be able to agree that to teach a one-dimensional, "Disney version of history" (as Loewen calls it), in which complexities and controversies are smoothed over or ignored and students' understanding of causality in history is impaired, is plain wrong. Loewen also tries--and not necessarily with an outsider's perspective, as he himself is a high school history textbook author, who knows firsthand the near futility of publishing a textbook of integrity--to explain the causes of our American history textbook troubles. In this connection, I must say that the *Booklist* editorial review that Amazon.com has posted to this webpage is misleading. The review states that "To account for the deplorable situation, he [Loewen] offers this quasi-Marxist explanation: 'Perhaps we are all dupes, manipulated by elite white male capitalists who orchestrate how history is written as part of their scheme to perpetuate their own power and privilege at the expense of the rest of us.'" But even Dr. Loewen is not *that* bad. Contrary to the review's implication, he ultimately dismisses this "elitist" explanation as an oversimplification, stating that "power elite theories may credit the upper class with more power, unity, and conscious self-interest than it has." He then discusses other explanations, such as the way textbooks are chosen--often by state-appointed adoption boards, which are sensitive to organized interest groups out to promote textbooks that further their own agendas, and which never have time to read 800+-page textbooks, in any case. Blame is also laid on textbook publishers, which have a financial incentive to copy success (i.e., traditional, mediocre textbooks) and to refrain from rocking the boat by being original and, thus, possibly arousing controversy; textbook authors, who for a variety of reasons have no incentive to do quality work; and teachers, many of whom aren't as expert in their subject as they should be or are afraid (not without good reason) of getting into trouble with parents and administrators should they teach against the book. Loewen's full account, which is fairly complex and discerning, of the various factors that interact to produce our high school American history textbooks, I leave for the reader to examine. In closing, I would like to observe, in regard to the aforementioned ridiculous review by *Booklist*, that if one looks at *Booklist's* webpage, one sees that the publication itself is responsible for the review of textbooks that are used in public schools. Given this fact, the disrespectful, dismissive, even dishonest, treatment it accords *Lies My Teacher Told Me* should not surprise us. How ironic it is that Dr. Loewen's point has been made for him here, in this very forum, by his opponents.
Rating:
Summary: Useful and well written
Review: Fairly free of polemics, yet passionate and revealing. Useful for HS US history teachers.
Rating:
Summary: A Vision of Truth
Review: I'm glad Mr. Loewen took the time to put all this information in a people-friendly book. Had I not already stumbled onto the works of Howard Zinn (A PEOPLE'S HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES), I would have been considerably more shocked by this book. It covers all the misinformation currently offered by textbooks on American History. The most important point he makes, is that we don't have to turn our heroes into mythological icons for their accomplishments. They are people like us, after all, and prone to as many personal mistakes as anyone else. The majority of history texts state only the great accomplishments and events, without reference to circumstances. Perhaps this is why history is a difficult subject for many. Listing names and dates is devoid of any human interest that would cause students to remember and question what happened and why. If we continue to serve up whitewashed versions of the real histoy of America, how are students ever going to feel the passions at the root of the struggle for women's right to vote, the abolition of slavery, the pros and cons of the Vietnam War, The Great Depression? We cannot send our children out to demand respect for America and her institutions if we don't arm them with the truth.
Rating: 
Summary: Loewen is informative, yet wordy
Review: I was recently assigned Loewen's "Lies My Teacher Told Me" for an introductory history course. The first few chapters were extremely interesting. They caught my attention and kept me reading because I was surprised at the number of fallacies high school students are being told in social studies classes across the nation. This book HAS given me a new approach to the study and interpretation of history, and I'm thankful for that. The only problem I had with the book is that Loewen tended to get rather wordy at times. Hero making was a good way to start off the book, since it hit you right on with what you thought about your favorite historical figures and the truth about them. Columbus and Thanksgiving were eye-openers, and at times page turners. The rest of the book remained highly informative as well, but it would take Loewen 30 pages to say what he could say in perhaps 10. I felt myself going through deja-vous throughout the entire book. But I guess he can make more money from a book than a journal. Overall, I thought the book was extremely appropriate for an introductory history course, mostly because it isn't a standard textbook and it opens your mind to new ways of thinking. And I guess Loewen doesn't call himself a great writer, but a researcher trying to give Americans facts to help them better understand their country. I would recommend it to anyone fed up with his or her history experience.
Rating:
Summary: Recommended for those who question authority.
Review: When I was in school, I never thought to question the contents of my textbooks or the lectures of my teachers. I had not learned skepticism or how to question the assumed authority of the written word. I didn't understand what racism was (nobody talked about it then) let alone that many of the early Americans were rampant racists. With the reading of The Crucible in high school I began to understand the power the written word can take as a social commentary and how the truth can be distorted into something completely unrecognizable. By the time I was in college I learned not to believe everything I read, and that history is not written in stone. There are unanswered questions, there are varying accounts, there are downright discrepancies. This book has been extremely informative, in giving the part of American history that the text books leave out. It may not be necessary to have complete disclosure in that 4th grade history text, but it could add some of the other (often dark) facets to the personalities of our 'American heroes'. Very informative and intriguing, I recommend to history buffs and those who question authority alike.
Rating:
Summary: Something has gone very wrong....
Review: This book, which (ironically?) should be required reading in U.S. schools, asks - and answers - some important questions. For instance, "why is history taught like this"? why is history such an unpopular subject?, and "what is the result of teaching history like this"? James Loewen, a professor at the University of Vermont, spent 11 years researching and writing a book which attempts to answer these and other questions. And although Loewen certainly has a specific political perspective (left-of-center), it really doesn't matter much as far as the book is concerned. Someone with a right-of-center political ideology theoretically could have written a book like this, because the bottom line is that the way American history is "taught" now shortchanges EVERYONE - right/left, white/black, man/woman, majority/minority, etc. Lowen's overall conclusion regarding the teaching of American history in our schools is that "something has gone very wrong." The biggest problems, in his opinion: "the books are boring...every problem has already been solved or is about to be", textbooks "exclude conflict or real suspense", textbooks "almost never use the present to illuminate the past", they "keep students in the dark about the nature of history" (which is not always sweetness and light, even in America, believe it or not!), and they always try to paint America - especially white, male, European, upper class, Christian America -- in the best possible light, even when it contradicts the facts. But no matter what your ethnicity or political point of view, you should be opposed to the way history is taught in schools, because it makes a mockery of American history (and ultimately America itself), which is a fascinating history (and country) - in all its incarnations (good, bad, amoral, etc.). Taught in a moronic, boring, rote-memorizing way, however, American history is sure to turn off just about anyone with a brain. And that's pretty pitiful when you consider the amazing dramas that American history contains - it takes some real effort to make THAT boring! But U.S. history textbooks manage it, somehow... The result of all this? Unlike just about any other subject, studying history the way it is taught in our schools "actually makes students stupid," according to Lowen, and they get stupider the more they study it! Students (and future voters) are thus "hamstrung in their efforts to analyze controversial issues in our society." Besides making people stupid and bored, the way history is taught in America today also leads to all kinds of distorted views (to the extent that students pay any attention) of the past, and ultimately the present (and even the future). This problem is especially bad for non-European minority students, especially if their group happened to be one of the "losers" historically. For those students, "American" history is hardly about them or their ancestors at all, which of course implies that their history/ancestors/culture are not worth writing about. (Sort of like when I was a kid and thought that all the news was in the newspaper; if it wasn't in the newspaper it must not be important!). To the extent that Native American history is covered at all, for instance, it almost totally glosses over some pertinent facts, like for starters that Christopher Colombus and the majority of European "explorers" consciously set out to enslave, convert, oppress, torture, and even exterminate the natives, mainly in the name of profit maximization. This is not an issue of being "PC", or "psychotherapy for minorities" as the Rush Limbaugh "dittoheads" would undoubtedly argue, but of depicting history, warts and all, ACCURATELY. As it is now, American history can be thought of as little more than "psychotherapy for whites". Do we really need THAT? Are we saying that European Americans can't handle the truth? Remember, there's both glory and ignomy in everyone's history. We're all human, after all. Maybe that's what bothers the right wingers most of all - the thought that they and their ancestors are in the same boat as everyone else, and that they are not inherently special or better than anyone else. But isn't that what America's supposed to be about? Equality of opportunity? All men are CREATED EQUAL? Anyway, the bottom line question here is: what constitutes American patriotism? If you think it should be a blind, unthinking belief in America's goodness and greatness, then don't read this book...it will just make you angry! If you think, though, that what makes America a great country is diversity (of thought, mainly), the liberty to draw your own conclusions and hold whatever beliefs you care to hold, and the right to argue whatever side you're on passionately in a great democracy, then this is the book for you. Enjoy!
Rating:
Summary: Required reading
Review: [I wish there was a search engine here so that I could find out if which of those 120 reviews was written by a non-American. I'd like to hear what my own compatriots thought.] I found "Lies" both enjoyable and informative. I have read a few American history books and seen a few historic sites and a lot of documentaries on U.S. television networks and most seemed very puffed up about how a great Republic of heroes marched onward to a glorious destiny. [I exaggerate but only a little] It was refreshing to read simular criticism from an American - repeat American - history professor. Perhaps Prof. Loewen exaggerated too, to prove his argument that there is neither enough time nor less haliographic textbooks in the U.S. high school American history curricula. If they were more controversial and more time was alloted for discussion [of attitudes concerning the immigration of the Irish, Chinese and other non-English races at various times in the 19th and early 20th centuries for example], students could compare and contrast, question, learn the skills of becoming informed and participatory citizens. The present method is a quick spoonfeeding of what they are 'supposed to know', no questioning, no discussion, which leaves the citizen with historical indigestion of half taught half remembered 'facts' is how I understand his argument. But he is right that this method leaves too many gaps that distorts "what happened" into fantasy, not history. I never knew in school what an activist Helen Keller was [she was only the 'good little deaf girl' a sort Shirley Temple played in the movies] or that the "Civil War" North was not 100 % abolutionist and that there were draft riots and race riots in New York City. To say that your Founding Fathers were not equal to Greek gods; that the colonists had to decide "Isn't this treason and what is it worth to me?" before they fought for Washington or King George or stayed home. It floored me. It's so radical. Much of his argument reminded me how alike is the method history is taught here in Canada. Loewen writes that most Americans have not read about the War of 1812 from the Canadian perspective. I'm sure he's right; but I've not read about that war from the American perspective. American textbooks call those who did not fight for Washington 'Tories' ['Tory' = 'Traitor']. My textbooks call them 'Loyalists' and their decendants are so proud of the name. We don't trumpet our 'heroes'; but we don't read in our schoolbooks about the shady deal our founding fathers tried to put through regarding the building of the Canadian Pacific Railroad. Pity. I would've gained some knowledge how "the real world" works. All in all, I think it should be required reading on your side of the border, whatever your 'wing' is, and a Canadian version of the same should be written for my side of the border. Then, lets trade books about 1812, shall we?
|
