Rating: 
Summary: Flawed and Dishonest
Review: In "Lies My Teacher Told Me" Dr. James Loewen argues that high school American history textbooks are bland, boring and inaccurate, serving to alienate students and justify the status quo. He further argues that the introduction of a liberal, multiculturalist perspective will lead students to like history and produce critical thinkers who will question the status quo. I believe this book contains some truth and makes some valid points - but it is flawed at the center.I agree with Dr. Loewen that American History textbooks are bland and boring, serving to alienate students. I also agree that the textbooks need to be more inclusive, letting students hear the voices of women, minorities, and the lower classes - but I say this without identifying myself as a multiculturalist, for the equation of multiculturalism with inclusiveness is questionable to say the least. My main objection to the book is Dr. Loewen's dishonesty about his point of view. On page 245 he states "Objective scholarship does exist in history, which is why I risk words like truth and lies." Then, on pages 302-303 he scourges "Hawkish right-wing Republicans" while dismissing Barry Goldwater - and anyone who voted for Goldwater - as an idiot ("social stupidity"). Furthermore, throughout the book multiculturalism is presented as the gospel truth, without a hint of counterevidence. Dr. Loewen is entitled to his point of view, but I am offended by the attempt to hide an agenda of political indoctrination under the guise of objective scholarship. Some of the claims in the book are questionable, especially those concerning Native Americans and those concerning the Vietnam war, but I will agree that LMTTM is, in the main, factual. Some defenders of LMTTM have argued that, since the book is factual, it therefore represents "the truth" about American history. It might be nice if historical truth was that simple, but it's not. Does the book contain facts about American history? Yes. Does it contain all the facts about American history? No, it contains selective facts that support a political agenda. I have a very strong suspicion that, by using facts selectively, a conservative could write a critique of American history textbooks that would be equally factual - and so could a Marxist for that matter. It is not merely a question of facts, it is a question of which facts and how those facts are interpreted - and this question is begged in LMTTM. Furthermore, Dr. Loewen's claim to an unvarnished account of American history is hardly tenable, given his position that liberals and minorities are sanctified. And I believe that Dr. Loewen, like most ideologues, wants to deny the complexity of history - for ideology is ill served by complexity. Furthermore, there ARE legitimate questions about multiculturalism, and these questions are also begged (see, for example "Dictatorship of Virtue" by Richard Bernstein, "The Redneck Manifesto" by Jim Goad, and "Against The Multicultural Agenda" by Yehudi Webster). And, based on my reading of Goad, I would ask: Is multiculturalism an attack on the status quo by powerless, oppressed people or is it a bourgeois philosophy that justifies and maintains the status quo? On page 295 Dr. Loewen states that traditonally taught American history amounts to "feel good history for affluent white males." Fine, but it could just as easily be argued that LMTTM amounts to feel good history for upper middle class white liberals, relieving their feelings of guilt about class privilege without requiring them to make any actual sacrifice. Throughout LMTTM Dr. Loewen presumes to speak for minority students. I can only say that my experience teaching American history to Native American students (12 years) has convinced me that he has no right to do so. He certainly doesn't speak for all of my students, some of whom believe that Barry Goldwater was right about Vietnam. And I must therefore ask: is multiculturalism about minority viewpoints or political correctness? I would appreciate an honest answer, although I don't expect to get one. Finally, Dr. Loewen claims to be an advocate of questioning and critical thinking, but this claim is belied by the actual text of the book. According to LMTTM liberal ideas such as multiculturalism are not to be questioned - they are to be taught to students as gospel; conservative ideas are not to be questioned either - they are to be "taught against," that is, dismissed. Where, then, is the questioning? My understanding of critical thinking is that, with a few exceptions, all ideas are to be questioned and none are to be dismissed. And I believe one of the most striking things about the book is it's utter lack of critical thinking. I could go on at length, but I believe my point of view is clear. My advice is to take the book with a very large grain of salt.
Rating: 
Summary: A Must Read for any Student of American History
Review: As a conservative white male who views revisionist history quite skeptically, I did not expect much from this book. As a student of American history, I understood what a woeful job our textbooks and (unfortunately) our teachers do in teaching the actual history of this country, but I never expected both the depth and the level of scholarship Mr. Loewen presents in this book. It is well researched, well written and much needed. Having grown up near an Indian reservation, my own personal studies in original sources confirm how accurate Mr. Loewen really is. The book is hardly "political correctness" run amuck as suggested by one review. And his point is not to paint America as evil or bash Christian Europeans as two other reviews would lead us to believe. This type of simple minded attack does not tell us anything about the book, but rather betrays the reviewers' own entrenched viewpoints - viewpoints that certainly will not be changed by exposure to the truth. In fact, the criticisms make Mr. Loewen's point almost better than he can as to why history is taught in feel-good myths rather than truth. Yes, Mr. Loewen treats certain issues and not others. He tells us he is doing so several times throughout the book, and makes apologies for it. This is not intended to be a replacement for a full history of the United States. Mr. Loewen makes good and valid suggestions as to such replacements. It is not even intended to be a complete coverage of all the things our history texts get wrong. He would need several more volumes for that, and even then would get some of it wrong. For those who actually read the book (and many reviewers obviously did not), he admits all of this. Mr. Loewen's book is an important start. But it is only a start. One reviewer, in criticising the book, stated that we must learn from our past. But this is exactly the point of the book. We must and can learn from our past, but only if we have the objectivity and moral courage to accept what that past was. As a white Christian Anglo-Saxon male, I feel no need to beat myself up as a result of the deeds done by white Christian Anglo-Saxon males who are long dead. But I do feel the need to move forward with as good an understanding as I can have of the cultural and personal histories that cause people to act as they do - especially those whose backgrounds are so different from my own.
Rating: 
Summary: About time
Review: It's about time somebody collected all this information and made it available. A vast majority of Americans who grew up in the 50s, 60s, and even 70s were fed wrong information, straight out of "history" books. Most people don't realize that history gets written by those who are able to get their foot in the door. All you have to do to realize this is witness the news via different stations and newspapers. As Winston Churchill said, "History will be good to me, for I intend to write it." That's it in a nutshell. Have also read two really great books lately, one being somewhat realated to this, obliquely, and one a work of fiction. A SHORT HISTORY OF NEARLY EVERYTHING is a wonderful, concise book and fits well with "LIES" while a book called "THE BARK OF THE DOGWOOD" is an interesting take on race and what we're taught, though it is a complete work of fiction and not anything along the lines of this book. At any rate, all are excellent, but whatever you do, buy LIES MY TEACHER TOLD ME first and read it. It's about time.
Rating:
Summary: While there is liberal bias, his premise is sound.
Review: Many other reviewers have a problem with the liberal bias in this book and it is there. In trying to give the alternative perspective to the textbook history, you almost have to have a liberal bias. However, the author is not a Gore Vidal type demagogue trying to destroy every cherished American ideal. What he is doing is giving the facts left out of the text books, then trying to come back and say why we should still admire the Pilgrims, Columbus, the Founding Fathers, etc. His main point is not so much that the textbooks have a conservative bias, but that they have a BORING bias. People who love studying history don't usually find that love in K-12 studies. They usually get a copy of the Book of Lists or a really good college professor. (or a mutant high school teacher that is considered the "hard" grader, but that's only because you actually learn something) This is a shame. The author is arguing that in preserving the jobs of textbook authors, the textbooks are killing interest in learning. Instead of becoming good little citizens, children grow up and become surly cynical jerks. Ok, maybe that's not the textbook's fault, but it would be nice to know that Lincoln really did give anti-slavery speeches that compared the Civil War to a holy war or that there was an active abolitionist movement both white and black or that the Civil Rights movement wasn't the first time that black and white citizens worked together in a common purpose and that the Reconstruction was not a bunch of Carpet Baggers as portrayed in Gone with the Wind. Read it. Find out why you have hated history all this time. Especially read it if you are a bored high school student. Then read something else historical. May I suggest American Aurora or Thomas Paine's Common Sense?
Rating: 
Summary: Worth the Read
Review: At times fascinating, at times boring, this book attempts to re-educate the reader. The author describes how textbooks are designed to teach children facts, myths, and, to some extent, blind patriotism. The author advocates depicting all figures as humans instead of heroes. He also denounces the authoratative tone textbooks take when they present speculation as fact. For the most part, the author's arguments are persuasive. Though not perfect, the author is compelling when he reveals the eurocentric slant of textbooks as well as the self-defeating practice of history classes to ignore how past events cause present day problems. Some have claimed this book has an agenda. What book doesn't? The question should be, Has the author adequately defended his agenda? I believe, for the most part, he has. No open-minded reader will leave this book without something to think about. Even if you disagree with many of the author's points, you will most likely agree with many of his more general complaints about textbooks. The major flaw with this book is that it is boring. The author attacks history textbooks for being boring, yet is sometimes boring in his book. However, the book is interesting more often than not. Final Verdict: Not perfect, but worth the effort. 3.5 Stars.
Rating:
Summary: Not Perfect, but Very good overall
Review: I saw a friend reading this book a while back and was captivated by its provocative title. After reading the entire book, I can say that while not perfect, it is very well written and thought provoking. Loewen's main thesis is that American History textbooks (mostly for high school courses) are often bland, boring, and sometimes just plain wrong. Textbooks do this for the sake of convenience and to avoid discussing issues which would make America or individuals look bad. Loewen examines twelve American History textbooks commonly used and discusses passages which avoid the facts, gloss over them, or sometimes state an outright lie. The first chapter starts with Helen Keller and Woodrow Wilson. Who knew that Wilson was against women's suffrage, that he was a staunch racist, and that he sent troops to fight in the eastern Soviet Union and Mexico? Loewen also discusses Helen Keller's adulthood as a socialist. Loewen supports his facts with copious endnotes from numerous sources. Although some sources seem to be more credible and mainstream than others, it is clear that Loewen's statements are well bolstered and are based on rigorous scholarship. Other chapters cover Christopher Columbus, the first Thanksgiving, the treatment of Native Americans/American Indians by white "settlers," racism in America, the unknown actions of the federal government, and Vietnam. The final two chapters also discuss why history is taught this way and how to change it. Some reviewers have criticized the author for liberal bias in his book. After reading the later chapters, I do agree that some liberal bias exists. Loewen certainly does not have much positive to say about Vietnam, Barry Goldwater, or Ronald Reagan. I also feel that some of Loewen's phrasing about Vietnam (written back in 1995) is coincidentally similar to some phrasing used by some liberals today regarding Iraq, which is also a reason why strong conservatives may find LMTTM to be subconsciously distasteful. The real problem with LMTTM is that Loewen's version of the truth is not perfect (to his credit, Loewen is gracious enough to admit this in his book). Loewen's defense of John Brown as a sane man willing to die for his beliefs could be easily misused by a fanatic who wished to bomb an abortion clinic. And how far should history books go in advertising the tragic flaws of our heroes? If high school students only remember the sensationalist stories from history, they will remember only that Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, that Martin Luther King and John F. Kennedy committed adultery, and that Charles Lindbergh was a Nazi sympathizer. All that being said, Loewen's thesis overall is correct, and he presents it clearly and factually in a way that is thought provoking and easy to read. Perhaps if we teach the whole truth about history, we may find some uncomfortable spots, but we will have a history we can really be proud of. I recommend this book to all but the staunchest Republicans. Enjoy!
Rating:
Summary: About time
Review: It's about time somebody collected all this information and made it available. A vast majority of Americans who grew up in the 50s, 60s, and even 70s were fed wrong information, straight out of "history" books. Most people don't realize that history gets written by those who are able to get their foot in the door. All you have to do to realize this is witness the news via different stations and newspapers. As Winston Churchill said, "History will be good to me, for I intend to write it." That's it in a nutshell. Have also read two really great books lately, one being somewhat realated to this, obliquely, and one a work of fiction. A SHORT HISTORY OF NEARLY EVERYTHING is a wonderful, concise book and fits well with "LIES" while a book called "THE BARK OF THE DOGWOOD" is an interesting take on race and what we're taught, though it is a complete work of fiction and not anything along the lines of this book. At any rate, all are excellent, but whatever you do, buy LIES MY TEACHER TOLD ME first and read it. It's about time.
Rating: 
Summary: Lies?
Review: Let's be careful of the lies from the biased news media and books like this one. I'm no great fan of Fox news but at least they do present a more balanced picture of the news than most TV (so called) news programs and books like this one. I tried to give this a zero star rating but Amazon insisted on one star for the lowest rating.
Rating:
Summary: Will confirm your biases
Review: This is a book designed to Preach To The Choir. As such, it does speak to some of the innacuracies in our collective history, but overlooks those innacuracies that don't fit his world veiw. One example: Loewen does a good job of countering some of the myths surrounding the early explorers (Columbus, deLeon), but fails to note that the natives on the continent were organized into about 500 nations, a huge number of which were genocidal warrior tribes (Blackfoot comes to mind). If you're on the Left, you'll give it 5 stars and claim it a masterpiece. If you're on the Right, one star for the PC crap. .
Rating:
Summary: Almost everything you thought you knew but didn't
Review: Sociology professor James Loewen wonders why American history is, for many high school students, their most hated and least memorable subject. After all, given the clash of Native peoples with Europeans, Europeans with each other, a revolution and the founding of a republic, a bloody civil war, two world wars, the conflicts in Korea and Vietnam, and hundreds of years of racial tensions, American history is inherently dramatic. Moreover, studies have shown that minority students who perform well in math, sciences, and other subjects consistently underperform in American history. By examining the contents of a dozen representative textbooks, Loewen discovers what's wrong with American history as taught-it truly is boring, bland, and, in many cases, consists of lies and half-truths. Almost worse, it is written in a simplistic, declarative style more evocative of grade-school primers than of the college-level works many high school students will soon face. The simplest example Loewen offers is that of Helen Keller, whose touching story of overcoming disability becomes the entire story of her life, as most of us know it. Like Tom Sawyer, she is stuck in perpetual adolescence in our minds. The real Keller, however, grew up and became an outspoken advocate for the working class and the poor. In fact, she became a radical socialist. As a symbol, Keller is two dimensional, almost like a character in a moving TV movie. As a real person, Keller is also a whole person, sharing why she empathizes with the lower classes, showing courage in supporting the NAACP in the 1920s, and even revealing embarrassing lapses in judgment, like her gushing support of the Russian Revolution. The example of Keller, paired with what the history textbooks leave out about Woodrow Wilson (his racism and imperialism, and, I would guess, his feud with progressives like Theodore Roosevelt) are minor compared to what follows. There's the "discovery" and "exploration" of America, with the pertinent question of a land settled for centuries can be either "discovered" or "explored." There's also the largely ignored question of other possible forays into the "new" world by peoples ranging from Scandanavia to Africa. American history texts treat history as a sacred text and each explorer as an archetype, ignoring Columbus's avaricious and vicious behaviour toward the Arawaks. One explorer is portrayed overlooking his "discovery" while wearing full armor-when, in reality, he and his party had been left with nothing but rags. Lies covers a great deal of territory, from Columbus to the whitewashing of even recent history, like the civil rights movement and the Vietnam War. History texts make several egregious errors: They tell blatant untruths. They perpetuate popular myths (e.g., the first Thanksgiving). They lie by omission. They leave false impressions (e.g., the civil rights movement had no causal relationship to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1965). They avoid negative images even from primary sources (e.g., the disgust Columbus's contemporaries felt about his treatment of the Indians). They fail to portray whole people (e.g., Lincoln and Douglas are carefully edited). They distort events and attitudes (e.g., Reconstruction). They avoid conflict and controversy at all costs. Fundamentally, they shun anything that would put history, people, and movements into context. They fail to make critical connections (like that between the civil rights movement and the Civil Rights Act). They therefore fail to do what intellectual inquiry should: engage students and require them to examine information and draw conclusions about its credibility and cause and effect. Instead, students memorise (badly) the archetypes and the myths built around them without thinking about their likelihood-or improbability. And, without being asked to engage themselves with the material or the people who make history, it's no wonder students can't remember anything and that they see history is irrelevant today. How have history textbooks reached this point? The fault lies with everyone from absent and indifferent authors, publishers who need to sell books, interest groups, states that prefer myth to reality, review boards that their own agendas, and, of course, each of us who learned this myths and believes them as untouchable as A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving. Popular culture perpetuates them. Of course, there are the teachers who are overburdened with administrative and disciplinary tasks rather than teaching. Loewen also notes that, while math and sciences are generally taught by people with degrees in these areas, history is so low priority that it often falls to a coach, who must justify his or her sports role by holding a teaching position, whether they are qualified or not. Loewen proposes a number of correctives. For example, he suggests teaching fewer topics. Is it necessary to memorise every European explorer who "discovered" something, or would it be more relevant to show the impact that Columbus's expeditions had, not only on the Americas, but on the cultures, economies, and futures of Europe, Africa, and the Islamic world? Rather than regurgitating facts, students can learn the skills of criticism-how to examine the credibility of primary and secondary sources based on the writer or speaker's viewpoint and agenda and how to put information into its broader context. History as it happened is why we are where we are today. Rather than distort it into "feel-good" nationalism, we need to learn what it has to teach us to engage with it. I recommend this to anyone with a serious interest in American history and in the current sad state of American history education. Diane L. Schirf, 20 March 2004.
|
