52 replies to this topic

[Lil Red]

Link here

The text-book in question is called World History Patterns of Interaction, and is published by McDougal Littell. Particularly upsetting was the section of the book covering the period from the end of WWII through the 1980s. It sets up the Cold War period with the mistaken politically correct explanation that both sides were aggressors. On page 983 it says:

Both sides believed that they needed to stop the other side from extending its power.” What it should have said was that the Cold War was a battle between the Soviet side wanting to expand its communist philosophy across the world, and the west trying to prevent the takeover.

The book also whitewashes the tyranny of Castro’s communist Cuba. Page 985 says “Soviet aid to Cuba ended abruptly with the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991. This dealt a crippling blow to the Cuban economy.” There was no mention of the brutality of the Cuban regime; the fact that all opposition newspapers had been closed down, all radio and television stations were in state control, or that moderates, teachers and professors were purged. Nor was there any mention of the torture and inhumane treatment in Cuban prisons that is still happening today.

Perhaps the biggest rewriting of history was the discussion regarding the end of the Cold War. It talks about Nixon and detente, then boom on page 991:

… fiercely anti-Communist U.S. president, Ronald Reagan took office in 1991. He continued to move away from detente. He increased defense spending, putting both economic and military pressure on the Soviets.

And how does the book explain the result of Reagan’s policies? “Tensions increased.” That’s it!

According to the text book, an increase in tensions was the only result of that “evil” Reagan’s policies. But never fear because, there arose a leader in the USSR who knew not the cold war. Later on page 991, the book explains “a change in soviet leadership in 1985 brought a new policy toward the United States and the beginnings of a final thaw in the cold war.” Wow, look at that… out of the blue the USSR woke up one day and decided to play nice.
========
go read it all....

[KnightofChrist]

Because so many in our culture have a love for Communism, even though it has killed far more people than Nazism.

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

I've become wary of ALL textbooks, since I started college. All textbooks are written with the idea of what students SHOULD learn, and almost inevitably lean toward, or overtly push, one point of view. And, in recent years, the concept of "political correctness" has invaded textbooks. Some textbooks for younger people have changed the words of well-known and beloved literature, because the author's words didn't meet the textbook publisher's idea of "political correctness."

When I was in college, I majored in History, and was surprised, and sometimes dismayed, to find that the way people were portrayed in my school textbooks was very slanted, and left out a lot of things about the person. Since then, I still read biographies, historical accounts, etc., but I much prefer to read the original source, if at all possible, so I can reach my own conclusion. Or, if reading an original source isn't possible, I try to read books by different authors who have different "slants" on a subject, hoping that maybe I'll be able to come up with a more balanced view for myself.

But, it's definitely a problem, and ranges from annoying to making me very angry.

Edited by IgnatiusofLoyola, 25 June 2010 - 02:55 PM.

[CatherineM]

There are lots of people with weird ideas who get to edit text books.

[Winchester]

What we need is a good dose of nationalism. This egalitarianism of nations--only Americans are stupid enough to believe it.

[Paddington]

What we need is a good dose of nationalism. This egalitarianism of nations--only Americans are stupid enough to believe it.

Should we stop being stupid before we start being nationalist or just work it out as we go?

[Ed Normile]

Much of what is taught under the guise of History would be better described as Historical Enhancement.

ed

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

Much of what is taught under the guise of History would be better described as Historical Enhancement.

ed

Stephen Colbert: "They say that those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. But if you change what history was, don't you solve the problem?"

Videri Quam Esse

[Archaeology cat]

I've become wary of ALL textbooks, since I started college. All textbooks are written with the idea of what students SHOULD learn, and almost inevitably lean toward, or overtly push, one point of view. And, in recent years, the concept of "political correctness" has invaded textbooks. Some textbooks for younger people have changed the words of well-known and beloved literature, because the author's words didn't meet the textbook publisher's idea of "political correctness."

When I was in college, I majored in History, and was surprised, and sometimes dismayed, to find that the way people were portrayed in my school textbooks was very slanted, and left out a lot of things about the person. Since then, I still read biographies, historical accounts, etc., but I much prefer to read the original source, if at all possible, so I can reach my own conclusion. Or, if reading an original source isn't possible, I try to read books by different authors who have different "slants" on a subject, hoping that maybe I'll be able to come up with a more balanced view for myself.

But, it's definitely a problem, and ranges from annoying to making me very angry.

I've heard the book Lies My Teacher Told Me is good. I've yet to read it, though.

And speaking of revision/censorship, I was reading Kipling's Just-So Stories to my son and noticed that one of the stories (How the Leopard Got His Spots) was censored. How sad when we censor Kipling.

[Gregorius]

My AP history teacher made sure we got the whole story before he let us go. But even then, he couldn't rely on the books alone.

I have copies of these history books by Clarence Carson that were published in the 80's. He actually rejects the modern method of making history books, putting pretty pictures in it and leaving out important information. It's a good read. The copies I have cover the early years of the U.S.

[Hassan]

Perhaps the biggest rewriting of history was the discussion regarding the end of the Cold War. It talks about Nixon and detente, then boom on page 991:

… fiercely anti-Communist U.S. president, Ronald Reagan took office in 1991. He continued to move away from detente. He increased defense spending, putting both economic and military pressure on the Soviets.

And how does the book explain the result of Reagan’s policies? “Tensions increased.” That’s it!

According to the text book, an increase in tensions was the only result of that “evil” Reagan’s policies. But never fear because, there arose a leader in the USSR who knew not the cold war. Later on page 991, the book explains “a change in soviet leadership in 1985 brought a new policy toward the United States and the beginnings of a final thaw in the cold war.” Wow, look at that… out of the blue the USSR woke up one day and decided to play nice.
========
go read it all....

What is wrong with this? That is pretty much what actually happened. I'm sorry if it departs from whatever partisan narrative the author of the blog wishes were the case, but objective history is against him.

[Winchester]

I believe the futility of communism competing against a free market and women who shave their pits and legs was the alarm clock, though.

[Arco]

Um....the US *was* a Cold War aggressor. It wasn't just sunshine and bunnies on our end of things.

[Hassan]

Um....the US *was* a Cold War aggressor. It wasn't just sunshine and bunnies on our end of things.

I think the preponderance of blame for the cold war lies with Stalin. Yes, he wanted to maintain the WWII coalition but I think that Andrew Kydd does a pretty good job of demonstrating that the Soviets were primairly responsible for the collapse of trust between the West and the USSR that accompanied the occupation of Germany.

Nevertheless, if the Soviets started the Cold War, they also ended it. Mikhail Gorbachev deserves far more credit than Ronald Regan for ending the Cold War. Ronald Regan deserve some credit. But the greatest thing he did was to stop walking around with Cold Warrior blinders on and recognize that Gorbachev represented a unique opportunity to deescalate the tensions that were returning in US Soviet relations. Regan came in with a crude international worldview and an opinions of the USSR while Gorbachev came in wishing to normalize Soviet foreign policy and reintegrate with the world community.

The collapse of the USSR was a analytically distinct but concurrent and related happening. That mostly has to do with the resurgence of nationalism amongst the various Soviet Republics and the power struggle between Gorbachev (representing the USSR) and Yeltsin (representing Russia). George Bush I tried to link the end of the Cold War with the Collapse of the USSR to try to save his bid for a second term.

If the textbook implies that Regan was solely responsible for the deterioration of Nixon's detente achievements then that is not giving the full story. The Soviet sctors also deserve some blame, particularly Andropov and Chernenko. But other than that caveat (which probably reflects the general vacuum of Soviet politics that is present in most US history texts on the subject, at least at the high school lever, than anything else) the text seems fine. It seems like this blogger is just in a sore state because the textbook doesn't play to some right-wing, partisan narrative.

[Winchester]

...Regan ...Regan ... Regan

Regan:
Reagan:

Note the flag. Commie.

[Era Might]

Regan:
Reagan:

Note the flag. Commie.

Hassan was pwned.

[Socrates]

Um....the US *was* a Cold War aggressor. It wasn't just sunshine and bunnies on our end of things.

Um . . . Evil Empires typically aren't brought down only by sunshine and bunnies.

Just as it wasn't sunshine and bunnies that defeated the Axis Powers in WWII.

Let's shed some big, wet, soppy tears for Hitler and the Nazis while we're at it.

[MIkolbe]

yeah.. that whole 'love your enemy' thing is SO passe'

[Winchester]

Love is not a synonym for being nice and noncombative.

[MIkolbe]

dude, is so.