Schools teaching slanted view of America

[Edi]

I don't know what it is with this overpoliticizing of history teaching. Frankly, when I was in school, we learned what happened and why it happened (as far as the why could be determined), but there was no specific dwelling on the morality of the events most of the time, and when there was, it wasn't the total focus.

In one basic sense history is just a record of events that have taken place and possibly of the reasons why those events came about. Certainly when you view the past through the lens of today's western ethics, a lot of it is seriously fucked up, and some things (such as Columbus's butchering of pregnant women) are fucked up by any measure of any time period and civilization, but that doesn't mean the learning of history should at the same time be a continuous exercise in moral self-flagellation. Especially if there are courses on ethics, a review of certain historical events/periods/phenomena in that light is better served there. Lacking them, the ethics aspect in the history class should not take up such a huge amount of time that it detracts from the purpose of the class or distorts the subject.

Edi

[Perinquus]

Washington's owning slaves may not make him a horrible person since it was widespread in the Americas, but he most certainly was not the blemish-free Greek god that we make him out to be.

True, but these days it seems like people just can't keep things in perspective.

Americans are right to admire Washington for several reasons. He was intelligent, courageous, steadfast and perservering in the face of what looked at times like a hopeless situation, and he knew how to make the most of what he had to work with. These are all very admirable qualities. But even more than that, Washington was the perfect example of a leader who leads by example. So many revolutions in history result in worse governments than they ones they replaced. This is because in many cases, the leaders of those revolutions are men with certain ideals and visions, and they brook no resistance to their goals. They often end up regarding themselves as the "indispensible man", and consider no one else to have the vision and clarity of thought to run things. They end up becoming tyrants. Washnington genuinely did not want power of that kind, which is rare. He was reluctant to serve as president, but did so anyway because he considered it his duty. He left after two terms, and established two precedents; one of peaceful transfer of power to his duly elected successor, and the other of presidents serving only two terms. This is a big contrast with other revolutionary leaders who, once they get their hands on power, never give it up. It is this, among other things, that we have to thank for the fact that we've had a stable democratic republic for the past two centurues, instead of seeing our government degenerate into something else.

But on the other hand, Washington had his bad points, certainly. He was a slaveowner. (Though in his defense, he was personally opposed to slavery, and in his will freed all his slaves, and left detailed instructions for for the care and support of the newly freed people, and records indicate that some lived on at Mount Vernon as pensioners until the 1830’s.) Even worse, perhaps, is that among the Iroquois, Washington was known as "the town burner". The Iroquois were allied to the British during the Revolution, and Washington secured his rear from attack by them by having their settlements razed. I have never read that these turned into massacres of the people living in them, but it did result in women and children being turned out into the wilderness with no shelter. and too, war being the bloody business that it is, I'm certain there must have been a fair number of deaths. So Washington was human, and certainly had his moral failings, just as we all do.

Still, it doesn't change the fact that he was, on the balance, an admirable man overall. Yet to revisionists on the left today, none of his accomplishments or admirable qualities matter a damn. They simply refuse to look past the slaveowner part of his life. Take Janeane Garafolo and her big mouth:

"Our country is founded on a sham: our forefathers were slave-owning rich white guys who wanted it their way. So when I see the American flag, I go, 'Oh my God, you're insulting me.'" - from a 1998 Buzz interview

Fuck you Janeane.

And when she was filming a test show for her stint as a guest host on CNN's crossfire, she made this comment:

Producer: Let's keep it a little lighter and I'll read the announcer open and off we go. "Today on Crossfire; Live from George Washington University --

Garofalo: They should call it "Evil Rich White Colonial Slave-owner University" but that's just me..

She didn't form these ideas in a vacuum. We have leftist, revisionist historians who are busy focusing heavily on all the rotten things America has done, and who basically couldn't care about any of the positive things. It's a fundamentally anti-American viewpoint, and it is invading some textbooks. I think moist of the damage is currently being done at college level, since that's where the custard heads who right this crap teach, but it is filtering down through the rest of the educational system.

[Iceberg]

Goes to get popcorn and waits for ICEBERG

I'm having quite a bit of fun here watching people tear each other's throats out, thanks.

But hey, thanks for the popcorn. *CRUNCH*

[Alyrium Denryle]

She didn't form these ideas in a vacuum. We have leftist, revisionist historians who are busy focusing heavily on all the rotten things America has done, and who basically couldn't care about any of the positive things. It's a fundamentally anti-American viewpoint, and it is invading some textbooks. I think moist of the damage is currently being done at college level, since that's where the custard heads who right this crap teach, but it is filtering down through the rest of the educational system.

I am seeing a lot of personal attacks with little substance... The fact of the matter is, Washington was a rich slave-owning white man. I fail to see how teaching both sides of an individual is "leftist"(I resemble the term) and "historical revisionism" when the fact of the matter is, IT IS TRUE!!!

Washington was no saint, neither was Jefferson. Great men yes, and the history books do explain this. But you need to know about both sides of the individual.

[phongn]

I am seeing a lot of personal attacks with little substance... The fact of the matter is, Washington was a rich slave-owning white man. I fail to see how teaching both sides of an individual is "leftist"(I resemble the term) and "historical revisionism" when the fact of the matter is, IT IS TRUE!!!

Did you read his post? His concern is that history books are beginning to concentrate on the negative aspects (e.g. slaveowning, "rich white man," etc) while sidestepping the more positive aspects of him.

[phongn]

Um... In my history clsse I have to POINT OUT the horrible things this country has done... My teachers dont mention it, and the book spends more time on range laws than it does on the genocide of the native americans.

...
Since elementary school I've been taught of the bad things the US has done.

[Peregrin Toker]

Why should American history textbooks paint a picture of USA as infalliblet?

And why is it "anti-American" to write in history books about, say, the bombing of Dresden or other human-rights violations committed by the USA?

The equivalent of your accusations would be if somebody stated that a history book teaches hatred against Russians if it mentions the fact that the Soviet Union deliberately inflicted famine upon its citizens. Can anybody see the flaws in this logic?

[Stravo]

Why should American history textbooks paint a picture of USA as infalliblet?

And why is it "anti-American" to write in history books about, say, the bombing of Dresden or other human-rights violations committed by the USA?

The equivalent of your accusations would be if somebody stated that a history book teaches hatred against Russians if it mentions the fact that the Soviet Union deliberately inflicted famine upon its citizens. Can anybody see the flaws in this logic?

I'm sorry but has ANYONE in this thread said that America is infallible? Has the article itself suggested teaching such a view point? So why come trampling in here with this dishonest evaluation of the other side of the argument? No one here wants there to be my country the utopia mind set but we're asking that the greatness as well as the flaws be taught. A BALANCED view of this counrty.

[MKSheppard]

Wow, nobody's ripped my throat out for saying Abe Lincoln was an asshole

[Knife]

Yeah, it should be fair and balanced.

*glances over shoulder to see if FoxNews lawyers heard*

[Perinquus]

I am seeing a lot of personal attacks with little substance... The fact of the matter is, Washington was a rich slave-owning white man. I fail to see how teaching both sides of an individual is "leftist"(I resemble the term) and "historical revisionism" when the fact of the matter is, IT IS TRUE!!!

Did you read his post? His concern is that history books are beginning to concentrate on the negative aspects (e.g. slaveowning, "rich white man," etc) while sidestepping the more positive aspects of him.

Exactly. I don't believe we should whitewash out historical figures. They were men with real, and sometimes severe flaws. Washington was no exception. But there are revisionists today who focus almost exclusively on their flaws, and who if they mention the good points at all, usually dismiss them with merely a remark or two, while they'll devote pages of commentary to a list of these figures' crimes and misdeeds. Janeane Garofalo is a product of this kind of philosophy. I think it contributes to a self-loathing view of US history that is every bit as unhealthy as a jingoistic, self aggrandizing one that refuses to acknowledge the bad parts.

[Hamel]

Janeane Garofalo is not a social studies teacher.

I'd like to see these history books that have such a negative slant.

[Joe]

Janeane Garofalo is not a social studies teacher.

I'd like to see these history books that have such a negative slant.

Read A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn. Or, better yet, don't. I wouldn't wish that experience on anyone.

The guy focuses almost exclusively on the negative aspects of U.S. history.

[Hamel]

Janeane Garofalo is not a social studies teacher.

I'd like to see these history books that have such a negative slant.

Read A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn. Or, better yet, don't. I wouldn't wish that experience on anyone.

The guy focuses almost exclusively on the negative aspects of U.S. history.

I've read about that book and browsed through the reviews at Amazon. It appears that it was written to counter what Zinn thought was the deification of America's founders and heroes, and the unconditional praise of America's history.

Why exactly does it this book bother you? The book is only giving you a side of the story that American high schools usually don't.

[Glocksman]

The problem with Zinn's book is not that his facts are incorrect (as far as I could tell, I'm not a historian), but the Marxist lens he uses to interpret the facts.

For instance, he said it was a bad thing™ that US workers were 'co-opted' by the political system and used it to effect change as opposed to staging a revolution.

Zinn's so full of shit, his eyes are brown.

[Joe]

Black and white fallacy. You can give a balanced presentation about American history without focusing exclusively on the negative aspects of it, like Zinn does.

Another alternative is to require reading from different sources in U.S. history courses; maybe a few chapters from a conservative historian, like Paul Johnson or Forrest McDonald, and readings from Zinn as well.

[Perinquus]

Janeane Garofalo is not a social studies teacher.

I'd like to see these history books that have such a negative slant.

Thank you for completely missing the point - proving once again that your knee-jerk liberalism can be expected draw you into reflexive apology for the leftist point of view, and to prevent you from even hearing what the other side is trying to say.

The point, once again, since you so obviously missed it the first time, is that Garofalo learned these ideas of hers from somewhere. Howard Zinn's books are one such likely place. She is a product of this sort of thinking. Funny, I think I said exactly that. Hmm... let's see...

...while they'll devote pages of commentary to a list of these figures' crimes and misdeeds. Janeane Garofalo is a product of this kind of philosophy. I think it contributes to a self-loathing view of US history...

Yep, I used almost those exact words. She is a product of this sort of teaching. Let me break it own down for you. In other words, while Janeane Garofalo is not herself a teacher, she most likely picked up this anti-American ideology of hers from people who are - some of them anyway. I should have thought that was obviously the point I was making.

[Hamel]

Black and white fallacy. You can give a balanced presentation about American history without focusing exclusively on the negative aspects of it, like Zinn does.

Not a black/white fallacy. I never said that history must be taught in 2 polar opposites.

Another alternative is to require reading from different sources in U.S. history courses; maybe a few chapters from a conservative historian, like Paul Johnson or Forrest McDonald, and readings from Zinn as well.

Or maybe the textbooks should give a "fair and balanced" view of America's history instead of handling everything with kid gloves? Bring a conservative historian in, and if he's anything like a Freeper, he'll tell you that the American slaughter of the native Americans was justified because they were savages. We've had a heavily conservative slant in recording and reporting America's history for hundreds of years anyway.

[Hamel]

Janeane Garofalo is not a social studies teacher.

I'd like to see these history books that have such a negative slant.

Thank you for completely missing the point - proving once again that your knee-jerk liberalism can be expected draw you into reflexive apology for the leftist point of view, and to prevent you from even hearing what the other side is trying to say.

Ad Hominum.

The point, once again, since you so obviously missed it the first time, is that Garofalo learned these ideas of hers from somewhere. Howard Zinn's books are one such likely place. She is a product of this sort of thinking. Funny, I think I said exactly that. Hmm... let's see...

...while they'll devote pages of commentary to a list of these figures' crimes and misdeeds. Janeane Garofalo is a product of this kind of philosophy. I think it contributes to a self-loathing view of US history...

Yep, I used almost those exact words. She is a product of this sort of teaching. Let me break it own down for you. In other words, while Janeane Garofalo is not herself a teacher, she most likely picked up this anti-American ideology of hers from people who are - some of them anyway. I should have thought that was obviously the point I was making.

So Zinn's book is dangerous based on this? His and others' philosophies are going to produce more Garofalos? Holy SHIT, do you realize how fucking paronoid you sound? Wipe the froth from your mouth and take a look at reality for a second - this book is not going to be a danger to society.

[Perinquus]

Ad Hominum.

Not at all. Ad Hominem refers to attacking you rather than refuting your argument. You didn't make any sort of argument, all you did was throw out the statement that Janeane Garofalo is not a social studies teacher, which is a red herring, since I never claimed or even suggested that she was. Moreover, I pointed to this pattern of behavior of yours becaue it did lead you to miss the point I was making, which was that her teachers were very likely partially responsible for influencing her to hold the beliefs she has today, not that she was a teacher herself.

So Zinn's book is dangerous based on this? His and others' philosophies are going to produce more Garofalos? Holy SHIT, do you realize how fucking paronoid you sound? Wipe the froth from your mouth and take a look at reality for a second - this book is not going to be a danger to society.

Something else I've noticed you do - accuse your opponents of ranting and raving when they are not. It's a kind of strawman argument: make my argument sound more extreme than it is in order to discredit it.

From my statements that Garofolo must have acquired her ideas from somewhere, you extrapolated the argument that I have a paranoid conspiracy theory view where liberal teachers are some kind of imminent danger to our society.

Of course, the fact that I never even hinted at any such thing is not going to stop you. I merely said that I think a too-negative view of American history, that won't acknowledge our virtues, is as unhealthy as a too-positive one that won't acknowledge our faults.

The way you positively leap to distort my argument, and characterize one who disagree with you as an extremist, I think it is you who need to wipe the froth of your chin.

[Peregrin Toker]

Janeane Garofalo is not a social studies teacher.

I'd like to see these history books that have such a negative slant.

Read A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn. Or, better yet, don't. I wouldn't wish that experience on anyone.
.

In that case, the title says it all and anyone should take a history book with a grain of salt if its very title indicates political bias. I find it hard to believe that public schools in such a right-winged country as the USA are using a history textbook whose very title oozes socialism.

But as I haven't read that book - how is it? Is it just a bog-standard textbook with a slightly left-winged flavour, or is it Communist revisionist history??

No one here wants there to be my country the utopia mind set but we're asking that the greatness as well as the flaws be taught. A BALANCED view of this counrty.

Why should a nation hide the skeletons in its closet?? Some people appear anxious solely because history books expose American human rights violations and the fact that they might outweight the good things done by the USA. After all - if a nation fails to inform its children of past wrongdoings, something is wrong.

I'm not saying that the USA haven't done anything good - but to me it seems that some people want a predominantly positive view of US policies to be taught.

Also - there's the fact that American conservatives accuse people of "hating America" if they criticize Bush's government - so I always take the term "anti-american" with a grain of salt.

However, I must confess I am a bit surprised about the fact that American history books tell that much about Lincolns racism. (I know from a Danish book about the KKK that Lincoln was reluctant to oppose slavery until he realized he could use the slavery issue as a method to gain international support, but the book also stated that this was due to pragmatism)

[Perinquus]

I'm not saying that the USA haven't done anything good - but to me it seems that some people want a predominantly positive view of US policies to be taught.

I think it should. With the caveat that that can only be justified when the positive outweighs the negative, overall. On the balance, I think it does. I don't for a moment say we've been perfect. Some of the things in US history, like our treatment of the Indians, our war of aggression with Mexico, terror bombing in WWII, propping up dicators like Saddam Hussein and the Shah of Iran, etc. are unjustifiable, but on the whole I believe the example we have provided is a mostly positive one.

I think history should be taught to try and focus on the positive things we've done in order to instill a healthy amount of patriotism and national pride in American children. But it should acknowlege and examine our faults as well to prevent excessive pride and jingoism.

However, I must confess I am a bit surprised about the fact that American history books tell that much about Lincolns racism. (I know from a Danish book about the KKK that Lincoln was reluctant to oppose slavery until he realized he could use the slavery issue as a method to gain international support, but the book also stated that this was due to pragmatism)

All right (cue epiphany), did you ever stop to think that that might just be an indicator that the United States as a whole is not as "right wing" as you think it is.

[Perinquus]

Also - there's the fact that American conservatives accuse people of "hating America" if they criticize Bush's government - so I always take the term "anti-american" with a grain of salt.

Careful, your bias is showing.

Let's not lump all conservatives in that way, shall we? I am a conservative. I have never accused someone of hating America just because they criticize Bush. I criticize him myself rather severely on his domestic agenda, and while I supported, and continue to support the war on Iraq, I do not characterize someone as "hating" America if they make a reasoned argument against it.

Now having said that, I think that people like Janeane Garofalo, who is "insulted" at the sight of the American flag, or who actually characterizes Geo. Washington as "evil", can be said to hate America on some levels. But that's rather more than simply criticizing Bush's government.

[Uther]

Calling George Washington a rich slaveowning white man is like calling me a skinny white mastrubator. Yes, it's true, but...

[Perinquus]

Calling George Washington a rich slaveowning white man is like calling me a skinny white mastrubator. Yes, it's true, but...

Ah, yet another one who can't, or won't se the point.

I see you neglect to repeat the word "evil". She also used that word, remember? Funny how your manage to see "rich", "white", "slaveowning", etc. but somehow, inexplicably, your eyes just glide right on over the word "evil" without ever seeming to notice it.