Rating: 
Summary: A one sided view of history
Review: One can see the author's true intent of this editorial work after only as few pages. His bias hinges on racism. The intent of the book has very little to do with "correcting" history and everything to do with portraying every person of European decent, except John Brown, as evil.
Its truly unfortunate that Prof Loewen doesn't get it. A race does not advance itself by attempting to discredit another. A race can only advance itself by admitting its mistakes and understanding needs for change. The Europeans did this in their abolishment of slavery, a horrendous act that still exists today in black Africa.
Prof Loewen should perhaps research and publish a book about the 50,000-100,000 blacks that served in the Confederate army, or the black slave owners of South Carolina that joined white slave owners to insist that the abolishment of slavery provision in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence be removed, or the shameful enslavement of the natives by slaves freed in America that returned Africa under the Monroe administration.
All races have good and bad. One has to first admit past sins before they can progress to betterment. This is the true sign of maturity and growth.
If you want a political slant, or enjoy reading racist materials, you may enjoy this book. It could have been so much better.
Rating: 
Summary: Very useful if frustrating
Review: If you read the various reviews about this text you will notice the considerable difference of opinion about the value of Loewen's work. Most of it you will probably also notice is related to his "far liberal" or "left-wing" stance. And indeed they are correct. Loewen has a number of annoying liberal ticks...you will get tired of reading his personal opinions interjected into various historical discussions.However, the larger points that Loewen makes are entirely valid and well worth the read. For historians of all stripes much of it will already be familiar, but Loewen does bring together these many different threads (heroification, foundation myths, American Indian history, Racism, class, etc.) into one concise package. All of these issue placed together one after the other form a powerful criticism of how we teach history, and what we expect of it. Everyone can benefit from this, and historians need to read it. If you consider yourself a conservative don't be put off by Loewen's "left-wing" stance. He at least, makes his opinion clear and upfront...which is more than most. Instead focus in on the questions he raises and think about how to truthfully discuss these isses with your own students...probably with a lot less politizing. We would be a wiser country today if every college survey instructor assigned this text for their students. Sure we'd also by annoyed by its "liberal stance," but better aware and annoyed than ignorant and happy.
Rating:
Summary: Great Book, Lousy Title
Review: I agree with much of what Loewen says about the way in which Textbooks portray American History. As a High School US History teacher I strive to provide my students with a balanced view of history and let them make their own decisions about what we examine. I stress that textbooks and teachers have bias as does all history and detecting and analyzing that bias is key to understanding nearly anything you read/hear.
However, I strongly disagree with his title as it is not the focus of the thesis of his book. He does not emphasize that teachers tell lies, but that textbooks do. A more appropriate title would be Lies my Textbook Told Me. I guess that title is less eye-catching and likely to sell fewer books than one which appears to bash teachers.
Rating: 
Summary: So What if he's got a Slant?
Review: It seems the only readers who don't like this book are those who disagree with Loewen's political and social opinions. The fact remains, though, YOU SHOULD READ THIS BOOK!
I consider myself to be a Liberal, and even I was amazed at Loewen's slant, but he covers himself by only asking that textbooks have some kind of point of view. Whether you agree or disagree with him, he invites debate in the classroom and in his readership.
History is a dark subject; our own philosophy dictates what we remember. Historians debate what happened and why, but the textbooks Loewen reviews teach bland fact and never question why. Nor do any portray events in the correct historical context. My never read my history textbooks in school for precicely this reason; I already knew what they said.
Wheather readers liked or disliked this book, I reccomend "The Pessimist's Guide to History" and ANY history book on any one topic that isn't a textbook. (example: Read "Dreadnought," by Robert K. Massie, to find out why the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand wasn't the cause of World War One.)
Rating:
Summary: Such Hypocrisy!
Review: Dr. Loewen starts this book by making a very valid and important point about how history is taught to children, and then proceeds to viloates every single point he complains about in his own view of history. His point about how American history is taught as a hail to the flag, cheer for all of these all american heroes so we won't have to think, is a very valid point. My own school history education through about the eighth grade mirrors this problem. Loewen argues for teaching history as a series of unproven arguments, and as a group of ongoing debates. This would be a change that I would herald, and I would love this book if that were indeed what he did. Unfortunatly he is every bit as bad if not worse than the other authors that he is complaining about.
Instead of overly praising U.S. heroes and ignoring their faults, Loewen does the same thing for the other side of the equation, making oppressing Native Americans and blacks the purpose behind every single action in U.S. history. While he is correct that especally the Native Americans are not given their full credit for their influence in the shaping of America, that fact does not excuse Loewens terrible use of history to rectify that. After the third chapter of the book, Loewen forgets to use such things as logic, and cause and effect to make his arguements. He makes claims with no real evidence to back him up. I would be facinated to find out how the Native American cultures directly led to Rousseau, Locke, and most of the other major englienment philosophers to write their best works. Such an argument effectivly made could propalby win him at least a pulizer. It seems that Dr. Loewen is immune to such basic burden of proof for his arguments.
He has come across to me in this book as one of many left wing history professors that saturate universities with a lot of hot air but very little substance. This is a book that needs to be written, but by a serious historian not this clown
Rating:
Summary: A fascinating rebuttal to feel-good high school history
Review: "When I look back on all the crap I learned in high school,
It's a wonder I can think at all" Thus spake Paul Simon ("Kodachrome"), and you'd think James Loewen took his cue from Mr. Simon. Here is a compendium of what's wrong with education in the United States in general, and history in particular. Of course, much of the western world shares similar problems, but this book focusses on U.S. history, as told by Junior and Senior High School texts. Loewen selects specific aspects of U.S. history, from hero worship of Columbus to treatment of the Vietnam war, and picks apart the flagrant errors and omissions that demonstrate textbooks are written as feel-good exercises for white, affluent teenage boys, but presented in such a dull way that even they don't like it. As currently taught, high school history boils down to memorising dates and factoids about a wide range of people and places in U.S. history. Very little is done to form a unifying view of history. For example, Loewen focusses on race, pointing out that texts discuss the Civil Rights movement of the '60's in a void without reference to Woodrow Wilson's policy of segregation or, further back, slavery. Instead, it is presented as a feel-good exercise: "We're the greatest country in the world because of all the problems we've fixed." Of course, everything is not okay - people of colour still make less money than whites, for example. If slavery is the "original sin" of the United States, the aftereffects are still lingering even today. Unfortunately, as Loewen points out, high school history is taught as "Some great men (not women!) saw a problem, they fixed it, now everything is fine." How then, can history be relevant to addressing inequalities in the world today? Students become passive sponges, considering history dead and irrelevant. Only the "great" can make a difference, so why bother trying? Instead, history courses should create critical thinkers, surely of great importance in a democracy. Wouldn't it be helpful to point out that Washington and Jefferson had slaves? That Columbus formed Nazi-esque work camps of Arawaks and forced them to mine gold for the Spanish? Current problems could be put into perspective, and the students could have a reasonable chance of facing them with confidence. There's no point in hiding the past from our students, especially those in high school. They have access to the internet, to libraries, to modern music and films, and they know that the history they learn in school doesn't match with these other sources, or their own observations. The time has come to be more realistic in our portrayal of history, and Loewen points the way in this provocative, yet entertaining and informative book.
Rating:
Summary: A Necessary Read
Review: I'm a high school student finishing this book for my AP class. While I have to agree Mr. Loewen doesn't take a neutral stance to the matter at hand (as he should have), this doesn't sway me from giving it five stars. The fact of the matter is we are being taught in our modern school systems that our country is #1 and has never done anything wrong and so on (just as the book says). This book was a real eye opener and brought to my attention many an important issue. It's sad many American adults (including the future ones that are in high school this day) will go through their lives with the kind of blind patriotism that this book identifies. Read it. Read it today.
Rating: 
Summary: Too Over The Top
Review: His arguments are Neo-Marxist at best. That in itselef does not scuttle this book, but his heavy handed approach does. Thus, even the valid points in this book get lost among the overbearing agenda. In fact, Loewen's approach in this book mirrors his own argument for what's wrong in schools. Loewen knows 'The Truth' and to hell with anyone who sees history differently. In the end, Loewen reminds me of many of my burned out Baby Boomer college professors who are stuck in 60s and ready to berate us with "The Truth". This is one book worth skipping. .
Rating:
Summary: nonstop read
Review: As a future history teacher I was very impressed and frightened at the content of this book. I read the entire book in 3 days, I simply could not put it down! This book makes you question everything you learned in history classes.. It makes you think twice about simply believing what is given to you. This book has caused me to change the way I want to teach history. I would recomend this to anyone, even those who think they hate history, because the content of this book is truely fastinating. My 12 year old brother even enjoyed this book!
Rating:
Summary: Great Concept: Spoiled by Author's Bias
Review: Be careful with this one. The concept of this book is right on target, but the author tends to confuse historical fact with ideology thus leading the reader astray. The book is generally well written and highlights many examples in which history textbooks are deficient. For example, the author poses the question, Why is John Brown not portrayed as a hero in history textbooks? This is a valid question. By most accepted and professed ideologies of modern Americans, this man should be recognized as a hero in the fight against slavery, but is not. And history textbooks used in America clearly leave much to be desired in the way of historical accuracy. Unfortunately this book is permeated with items pertaining to the author's (far left) political leanings, and which have little relevance to the subjects discussed. In addition, the author never actually provides clear and tangible solutions to the problems he has identified. For example, the author complains of history textbooks that are too long and include many useless facts and details. Yet the author primarily identifies examples of omissions in most history textbooks and offers little concrete advice for reducing textbook size except eliminating any mention of President Chester A. Arthur. The author complains of textbooks that do not include some highly-disputed and suspect historical items and then complains of textbooks that include historical events not absolutely proven to his satisfaction . In other words, include the stuff I like but don't include stuff I don't like. This hardly solves the problem. On the subject of "heroification" the author wants the reader and textbooks to see certain historical figures as they actually were, with all of their warts. Christopher Columbus, of course, is a primary subject. So far, so good. But instead of presenting Columbus in an accurate historical context - as one explorer and conqueror of many during the period - the author wants the reader to completely discount any and all of his activities that might possibly be considered accomplishments. The author contends Columbus' voyages were historically irrelevant because some other explorer would have most certainly sailed West from Europe to find land. This is the equivalent of erasing Neil Armstrong from history because some other astronaut surely would have first stepped on the moon if Armstrong had not made the trip. At one point, the author complains of a common "flat earth" myth in history textbooks and states that by the time of Columbus' voyage most educated Europeans had already discounted the "flat earth" theory. The author then admits that 11 of the 12 researched textbooks did not actually perpetuate the myth and the other textbook's wording on this subject was just not to his satisfaction. Here the author is identifying a problem in history textbooks that by his own admission simply does not exist. On the subject of racism, the author clearly wants the reader to believe that throughout history almost every person of European ancestry with the exception of John Brown was a white supremacist - facts and evidence notwithstanding. The author would also have you believe that the early British colonists of North America (with the exception of the colonial Governors and the wealthy elite) did not really want to carve out a living on the Atlantic Coast; rather they were fighting to escape to the interior in order that they might live in perfect harmony and eternal bliss with the eternally-docile Native Americans. This is, of course, utter nonsense. Here again the author has identified elements of history needing clarification, or maybe even complete revision, but has instead taken the reader far over the edge into the realm of his historical fantasy world. At one point the author complains of textbook misuse of the terms such as "civilized" or "civilization" And in the context of teaching history the author's complaints are likely valid. But here again, the author goes off target. In providing an example, the author quotes George Bush, "The entire civilized world is against Iraq" Now anyone with half a brain realizes that President Bush (41) was not using the term in any historical context and the quote does not speak of Iraq's social or cultural advancement. The author would contend that this is a misuse of the word. The rest of us understand (despite the author's wishes to the contrary), many words such as "civil" and "civilized" have more than one accepted and defined meaning. This is only one of several jabs thrown at President Bush and other conservatives. Later the author attempts to invoke class envy and blames the Reagan-Bush administration for the shrinking middle class and unequal distribution of income in America. The author's heavy socialist leanings become quite clear. Most importantly, these jabs at the political right have little concrete relevance to the author's discussion. Instead, the author operates under the notion: my political philosophies equal truth and any other philosophy represents a lie. "Lies My Teacher Told Me" identifies many elements of history textbooks badly in need of reform. The book also includes a frustratingly large amount of bias and misinformation. If you are able discount the latter, you may enjoy this book . If you lean to the left and are satisfied with discovering white-supremacy in a plate of spaghetti, you will definitely love this book. If, however, you are interested in cleaning up textbooks in the interest of historical accuracy, this one may leave you a bit frustrated and disappointed.
| 
