In 1995, James W. Loewen, who holds a PhD in sociology, read twelve of the most popular American history textbooks at the time and critiqued them for accuracy and inclusiveness. In 2007, he read another six textbooks and revised his original work accordingly. He published an edition with a preface about the era of “fake news” in 2018.

The main body of the book presents highlights of American history as told in the textbooks and then details exactly how the author feels they are wrong or misleading and presents an alternative version that could be included instead. In later chapters, Dr. Loewen explains how textbooks have come to this state and how damaging these books are to minority students in the short-term and American culture as a whole in the long-term. He also explores the world of textbook publishing and selection and how political that process is.

Hmmm…. Where to start? I mostly found this book fascinating and the inaccurate history we are taught infuriating but I also had problems with the tone. I’ll start with the positives.

One of my high school classmates recommended this book on Facebook and that opened a discussion about how abysmal the history department in our school was. I don’t have any complaints about any other aspect of my high school education but my foundation in history is almost nonexistent. It wasn’t even that my teachers were teaching lies; it was that they didn’t teach at all. College wasn’t much better. I was a biology major and I don’t think I took any true history classes. My humanities classes included history but as far as a class that had “History” in the title? I truly don’t remember one.

But being a reader with varied tastes, I have absorbed some history over the years. I don’t generally seek out history books but sometimes a title will capture my attention and I’ll pick it up. I do read quite a bit of historical fiction, which can be informative, but sometimes it’s misleading too. Anyway, not all of Loewen’s facts were new to me but a surprising number were.

Loewen’s main complaint is that our American history textbooks invariably teach from the point of view of White males of European descent. The textbooks also never criticize US policies and in fact teach that we’re the best and only getting better. Even the titles of the textbooks reflect this, with examples like Triumph of the American Nation and The Challenge of Freedom.

Beginning with Columbus (I believe none, or very few, of the books address pre-Columbian history) and his “discovery” of the Americas, there’s almost never a negative word. According to our textbooks, everything Americans have ever done has been for the betterment of all mankind.

Needless to say, no country is perfect. But where other countries might acknowledge mistakes and make an attempt to learn from them, the US rewrites history or reframes the problem to make ourselves look good. And so today, the Civil War is touted ad nauseum as being about States’ Rights instead of slavery, despite the fact that South Carolina’s Declaration of Secession is riddled with complaints about northern states failing to support the institution of slavery.

“A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that ‘Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,’ and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.”
From the Confederate States of America – Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

How much clearer can this issue be? And yet it’s something we still argue about to this day, 160 years later.

By failing to teach about the achievements and accomplishments of minority groups or women, the books alienate and exclude those same groups. Essentially, they’re implying that if you aren’t a White male of European descent, you have nothing to contribute. Your ancestors didn’t contribute anything and you won’t either. Everyone needs role models. Our textbooks completely fail to deliver them for broad swaths of the population.

The publishing and textbook selection chapters started to bog me down, but the entire process has very little accountability. The authors on the cover of any given textbook probably haven’t even read any of the book, much less written it. Freelancers who might or might not have a background in history write updates. Those same freelancers might work for multiple publishing companies so entire paragraphs are identical from one book to the next.

Every state has different textbook selection procedures but, as with most things in the US, the process is typically very political. The teachers who are going to be using the book rarely have a say in selection. No one reads the books and at best just flip through. That’s led to a serious problem of appearance overriding content over the past couple of decades. In 2007, Dr. Loewen writes that some books are almost unreadable because of all the boxes and irrelevant pictures and graphics that don’t illustrate much of anything but they sure look nice. He frequently mentions that Texas chooses books that are used statewide. That gives them huge power over the textbook publishing world. Why write a textbook that typically-conservative Texas obviously isn’t going to like and knowingly give up that source of revenue?

But the problems are more varied. There aren’t very many history majors in college at this point. And why would there be when so many of us share the same lackluster memories of our history classes? So coaches and teachers with other backgrounds are coerced into teaching history. With no formal background to draw from, they invariably teach straight from the book. Even teachers with a solid history background face pushback from parents and administrators if they start teaching history that is contrary to the established mythos.

I could go on but I’ll try to wrap this up.

My one big complaint, and it was big for me, is that the tone of the entire book is combative. I personally avoid confrontation at almost any cost and Dr. Loewen is strident in his criticism of these textbooks and the authors. He even names names. To be fair, he did contact some of the authors whose names are on the cover and confront them with, “Is this accurate? No? Then why is it in the book with your name on it?” So they had a chance to voice their opinions, but again, it came across as very confrontational. I even find the title to be antagonistic so I don’t know why this came as a surprise to me but it did.

The author himself had a very negative experience with publishing a history textbook, but he discloses that very early on. Somehow, the tone of this book came across as having… sour grapes? Don’t get me wrong. He published a history of the state of Mississippi and directly addressed its racist history. Of course Mississippi didn’t adopt the book. Dr. Loewen took the state to court and won a landmark case about free speech. Knowing this, I sometimes felt that the author was making a case of “This tripe can get published and selected but my book wasn’t?” He has a point but it still left a little bit of a negative taste in my mouth.

Overall, the book was eye-opening. I learned a lot of history that was completely new to me. I checked it out from the library but I really wish I’d had my own copy. There’s a huge wait list so I felt rushed to finish it. I would have liked to take my time and chew over everything I was learning. I don’t know how much appeal this would hold outside the US but readers who are open to new ideas, and especially teachers, should give this one a try. ( )

Good base level on why American history classes are fucked, annoyingly milquetoast about its own conclusions at times, bizzarely tries to equate existing white supremacist history courses with hypothetical textbooks that suggest "black people invented everything and white people invented slavery" (which if anything is closer to the truth than what is currently taught). ( )

Labai išsamus JAV istorijos vadovėlių turinio tyrimas su įžvalgomis apie tokio turinio poveikį amerikiečių su(si)vokimui.
Sužinojau daug naujo apie Amerikos istoriją.
Būtų įdomu, jei kas padarytų tokią analizę lietuviškų vadovėlių :) ( )

I was hoping it would have more information I didn't know. Some of the information on Woodrow Wilson was new. But I'm already familiar with the information on the Pilgrims, Native American's and the plagues, the founding fathers owning slaves.

I found it light on history information. It was way to preachy. Every chapter he reiterates his feelings on how bad history is taught, why it matters and how it should be changed. I got it the first time. I didn't need over and over and over again. ( )

My rating says more about me than it does about the book. One of the key points I've come away from the book with is that I'm not part of the target audience. This book is written for Americans. Those who have gone through or are going through the US education system. Coming from a different country I wasn't raised on US history. Everything I've learned I've had to research myself thereby getting round the majority of problems this book talks about.

I can't say the Australian history I learned in school is free from all the same sort of problems but I do believe it was much better.

This book was interesting but I could only recommend it to those who have experienced the US education system or are interested in it. If you're just interested in actual US history there are books out there which would serve better. ( )