Lies My Teacher Told Me ~ James Loewen ~ 10/00 ~ N Export

**SUGGESTED SCHEDULE FOR DISCUSSION**
Oct.15-22 Chapters 1, 2, 3.	Nov. 1-7 Chapters 7, 8, 9
Oct. 23-30 Chapters 4, 5, 6	Nov. 8-15 Chapter 10 to Finish

I have a copy of the book now and have read intro and first two chapters.

I am a little put off by the misleading title of the book. It really is a book about High School American history textbooks and the many omissions and points of emphasis they make- along with some out and out "lies" or factual errors.

How do we know if Loewen's history is better than that of the books he takes on- One way is the way he suggests a number of times in the book and that is to always go back as much as possible to the primary sources. In that respect the book gives good advice on teaching history (or anything) but he doesn't always follow his own advice in attempting to correct some of the errors he finds .

Given that, I am learning some history I didn't know before (checking up on Loewen as I go)

He notes in his forward how vulnerable history texts are to the various political forces that create the inaccurate and slanted content of such books and notes how literature texts, for example, are not .

I found this interesting as I did a detailed anaysis of about 300 high school literature texts used from 1917-1957 in this country and his trust in the editors of those texts is misplaced.

They , too, were and are subject to many of the same forces that shaped the content of the history texts,.

He says at one point that literature at least has the original text so students can read it and ignore all the editorial apparatus that is slanted. Not so- much of the literature I found had been tampered with by the text book editors for one reason or another and, of course, the selection process of material to be read fits into some of the same categories Loewen suggests as distortions in selection of historical marterial, particularly the emphasis he notes for the history texts to always point to silver linings- to view America always as moving onward and upward, to gloss over the many problem areas.

I found this even in a text that was developed to correct some of the lack of coverage of racial issues . This was a remarkable book of Black writings called "The Upward Path" published in 1924 in Chicago with writings of the non-standard black writers (non standard in other texts) such as WE DuBois and others . Even here as the title suggests a great deal of the literature of the black experience in America was omitted and glossed over in order to produce the forerunner of "We shall Overcome" message.

But it was certainly in sharp contrast to the few black writers in and the selections from them found in the standard texts.

As far as I can tell it was never used anywhere but in one Chicago school.

Thanks, Jim, for the thoughtful post. Will read it again when I have more time tomorrow and, hopefully, will have time to read a couple of chapters of the book.

Jim, your post was very thought-provoking. It ties in somewhat with a less-than-admiring analysis of Loewen's book by an historian named Sullivan, of Kent State, History H599:

Critique of "Lies"

Interesting

Lorrie

I had invited Mr. Loewen to come in and participate in our discussion of his book beginning with the 15th of October, and today I received a polite reply. He says that he is on an "intense" travel schedule from now up until Christmas, but is delighted we asked. Possibly his "intense" schedule is to push his new book, "Lies Across America," all about historical sites.

Lorrie

Is that a new book? I thought it was done- or did he just lecture around about that topic as I have heard him on public radio on the subject.

We have been traveling west from Wisconsin to the west coast for about 40 years now off and on, and it is interesting to watch how some of the historical markers along the way have changed over time- even some of the place names.

The Crazy Woman Mountains in Montana have become the Crazy Mountains.

I'm still waiting for the "Fetterman Massacre" marker to change to "Stupid Cavalry Blunder" to make it more accurate.

Traveling south from Chatanooga to Atlanta it is facinating to see all the battle markers saying " Sherman was defeated here on date x" then 20 miles or so (south) down the road "Sherman was routed here on date X+ 10"- One wonders how Sherman got from one defeat to another so quickly and actually did arrive in Atlanta.

I know- if you read the details some clever confederate general beat Sherman at point X and then moved on down to a new position anyway closer to his own supply lines while extending Sherman's.

Jim: I'll bet his "busy" schedule was lecturing about his already-published book. That was conjecture on my part, because in his letter he seemed to be pushing "Lies Across America."

Your comments about your obsevations in your travels were very witty. Do you have a copy of the book? It would be very good to see your pithy posts on this subject. We're planning to run a companion selection along with this book, for supplemental comparisons, called "Past Imperfect," supposedly about how Hollywood has used poetic license to an extreme when making historical movies. Should be interesting!

We'll be up and running on the 15th! Okay with everybody?

Lorrie

The basis for the identity between the Greek 'istoriai and the English enquiries is the famous beginning passage of Herodotos, who says his book is the result of his enquiries. The translator of my edition was Aubrey de Selincourt. Jacques Barzun renders it researches, in his book titled the Modern Researcher (1970). However, I must suspect that he would be no better equipped than any of us to translate Herotodos from the Greek. As the fella says, it's Greek to me! But, Charlie, there is a tie-in to the knowledge notion embedded in epitemology. Barzun says of the Greeks that they were a bustling, active, wide-awake people who "wanted to know." (Barzun's quote) I just want to clarify that History as Equiry was taught me by a professor of Ancient History who certainly did know his Greek.

Henry - Thanks for that. Are you reading the new Barzun book??

Lorrie, appreciated the link to Sullivan's critical comments of Loewen's book. That's what is so cool about Loewen's work---that it inspires further research and so extends the search. A good process.

Jim, I'm still chuckling over "Stupid Cavalry Blunder."

Hi, Betty! Yes, I like to read critiques that are other than flattering, don't you? So glad to see you here! Hope you'll be posting in this discussion when it comes up!!

Lorrie

Yes, Charlie, I have read Barzun's From Dawn to Decadence. Nothing I have said about his work should be taken as in any way deprecatory. He changed my way of thinking about Louis XIV in his new book, and I find many other points of value in it. I cannot, however, share his gross dismissal of our times as mere decadence. But it is ironic that he should take that view, since, under strict Classical definitions, he and I and about everyone we've mentioned, except maybe Aubrey de Selincourt, are not fully educated in that we cannot read Greek. And de Selincourt is probably gone by now. The book Who Killed Homer provides an interesting but not very encouraging commentary on our times, at least about the status of the Classical languages and literatures.

For those who are interested, and to answer my own question now that I have the book, the Smithsonian Institution awarded Loewen 2 senior postdoc fellowships and he took a sabbatical leave from the University of Vermont in order to write this book. The Smithsonian is in no way connected with the book other than these two awards.

I have a copy of "Past Imperfect" from my local library and think it will fit quite well with a discussion of "Lies..."

It is a series of fairly short critiques of selected (far too few) films arranged chronologically by the subject of the film.

The critiques are written by historians who specialize in the area covered by the film and for the most part also have some credentials as film critics (although that aspect varies widely from one essay to another).

I looked for some of the films that have shaped my concepts of historical events during my childhood and adolescence and found some of them like "Drums Along the Mohawk," "Gone with the Wind," The Grapes of Wrath," and "Mutiny on the Bounty."

Some like "All Quiet on the Western front." were tied together in one short section on five films of World WarI, and others were missing completely. No "Tale of two Cities, " "King Solomon's Mines," or "Anne Karenina."

It is a book put together by a committee and has both the advantages and disadvantages of that arrangement.

But I did enjoy reading 10-20 critiques as each gave me some insight into the world of movies as well as the history of the period covered in each.

Those who were in the Bradlee book discussion will find an interesting critique of "All the President's Men" that raises issues of a film being accurate but not true by changing not the facts but the focus of events. Bradlee's book in retrospect isn't as vulnerable to this criticism as it provided a much more comprehensive look at Watergate.

One of the reviews I read mentioned an interview at the end of the book with Oliver Stone.

That interview was not in my book, but I did find the text for it at

http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/pastimperfect.html

I found reviews at the following locations:

http://www.hallentertainment.com/movies/585.shtml

http://filmfreakcentral.net/moviebooks/pastimp.html http://www.editorsguild.com/newsletter/MarApr99/book_past_imperfect.html

That last link may not work as it got mangled in the roundtable's html editor wraparound.

Jim: Those are great tie-ins for the book "Past Imperfect." Yes, we're planning to comment back and forth with the two common books, and I think it should be interesting. All your links work well, for me. Thank you. Okay with you if we put one of them in the heading?

Lorrie

Wow. Who Killed Homer just went on my list, thanks, Henry.

Will we be taking this slowly? I really want to participate, what's the schedule?

ginny

That History Quiz is great!! A terrific idea to spice up the forum!!

Robby

Hi, all!

I just purchased "Lies My Teacher Told Me" and Past Imperfect, that JimO spoke of and am looking forward to the discussion, starting Oct. 15th.

Eddie

Thanks, Jim, for the review of the PAST IMPERFECT book - I have it also and did read the review of "All the President's Men." I wonder if Bradlee has and if he thought of all that while the film was being made.

Hey, Eddie Marie, gosh I'm glad you're going to be with us. Haven't seen you in a discussion for awhile, but then I don't get around to all of them and you may be more active than I am!

Lorrie - did you put the History Quiz in the heading or was it Harold? A great idea and a tough quiz proving to us that everything we thought we knew we didn't!

I took the quiz with two results:

1 - I failed miserably.
2 - I would like documentation to show that the answers given are correct.

Robby

Robby - just come to the discussion when it starts! You'll find some surprising comments!

Ella:

I'll be here.

Robby

Oh, gosh! I'm all packing boxes and getting ready to move to another state November 1 and reading 18 books as it is. But this is one of my Very favorite subjects, so-ooooo.

Jim Olsen, I love your posts, and I know what you mean about place names. So many have changed, often not for the better. Baltimore, for instance, used to have a main drag named CHARLES STREET AVENUE. I loved it because it was odd. Well, guess what? Yeah! They changed it and Now all the signs say just plain Charles Street. Shoot, the younger generations don't even KNOW any better!

Last week THE HISTORY CHANNEL did a revision of the Battle of Little Big Horn, and I was transfixed because, for the first time in My memory, they are beginning to tell the truth about Custer.

You see, my great grandfather was class of 1874 at West Point and was a young lieutenant in the 7th Cavalry under Custer. He was sent with a message to Reno early that day, and was spared. But he hated Custer and so did all the Army people I knew growing up an Army Brat. (My Dad was West Point 1925.) They all said the whole glory thing was a myth told to spare the American public the truth.

My great grandfather died when I was an infant, but my great grandmother lived to be 96. When I was a child, she always said that as soon as Mrs. Custer died, the truth would come out, if she had to write it herself. Well, Mrs. Custer lived to be 91 and my great grandmother was old and tired and we could not get her to tell the story. So all I can tell you is that they really, really despised Custer, and that is a fact.

Hi, everyone! This is absolutely great! It's so good to see these posters here ready to join in our discussion on the 15th!

Eddie Elliott: Welcome! Good to hear from you! We'll be looking forward to hearing from you!

Mary Page: It's like encountering an old friend seeing your name here, and that post is really interesting!! About your great-grandfather, I mean. It's little anecdotes like these that put some life into a discussion of what could be a sort of "dry" book, don't you agree? Some of the things that you say were said about Custer make me think of how some military men thought of General MacArthur, but then that's another whole ball of wax! It will be good to hear your comments. And yours, too, Robby!

Lorrie

Mary Page: That wasn't Janet Reno, was it? Duh!!! hahaha

MaryPage: That was an intriguing story!

Robby

Hi MaryPage! Now after that story we will all have to read the latest biography of Custer and discuss it! I'll have to look one up - at the moment I just started a book by David Maraniss - a Washington Post reporter and author - entitled "First in His Class" - about Bill Clinton. I saw the author interviewed by Brian Lamb on C-Span and liked him and his approach. The book, in the preface, says that if you come hungry for sex and scandal, you will not find it in his book, it's about the circumstances that made a boy into a president. I know there are many books on the same subject, and there will be a hundred more in years to come, but this one looks good.

BACK! To the corner, Lorrie!

that was really bad ........

There was a book written about my great-grandfather. It is titled: "A Texan With Custer, A Biography of An American Hero" and is by Ray Meketa. I doubt, though, that you can get it anywhere except out there at the Battleground gift shop these days. It was published in trade paperback by one of those small publishers, back in 1983. My great grandfather's name was LUTHER RECTOR HARE, and he died a General. The family was originally Virginian.

Wow, MaryPage, your great grand-father's name came up immediately!! Born in 1851, died 1929. Born in Noblesville, Ind - moved to Belton, TX - graduated from West Point June 17, 1874, etc, etc, etc.

You must be one proud great grand-daughter!!

Robby

WOW! This discussion is hopping already & so interesting...and I haven't even cracked the book yet!

MaryP...fascinating about your ggf! How proud you must be! I'm going to search for the book on him, in hopes it is available some place. PLEASE...when you have some extra time, (yeah...what's extra time...RIGHT?!), won't you drop in to Grandma's Attic, in the Genealogy Folder, and relate some of your memories of him? That's just the type of thing we love to share with each other in there. (memories of grandparents and other ancestors. I know others will love it too!

Whoever put that History Quiz in the heading...THANKS, it is great! (even if I did fail it miserably) It made me want to know MORE!

I am starting to think that maybe our History text books should be reclassified...as Fiction!

Eddie

Josephine Tey (deceased) wrote a great, short mystery story titled: A DAUGHTER OF TIME. It is my all-time favorite, and is taught in many colleges. It is an EXcellent eye-opener as to how history can be seen from different directions.

Gosh, Robby. I have never looked my gggrandfather up on the net! I'll have to give that a whirl!

So interesting about your g-grandfather, MaryPage. And he moved to Belton, Texas? Both my mother's mother's and father's families were of the earliest families in Belton, Texas. Last names: Rambo, Naismith, Sanderford, Kinsey, White. Belton is so much older than all the other central Texas towns of many, many counties. Because it was small and remained small, if your great grandfather lived there, it is very likely that his family knew folks in my family a long, long time ago.

I appreciated the link to the interview with Oliver Stone. Pretty interesting stuff. I feel a little less critical of him after reading it. However, I always thought his movie Born on the Fourth of July perfectly captured the angst of the Vietnam veteran---and, possibly, inspired other authors to illuminate other "darker" (as Stone would say) American historical issues. His criticism of Ambrose certainly rings true, also.

It's interesting that historians and scientists work from such different perspectives. When an article is submitted to a scientific journal, for example, it always helps to have a section that lists the limitations of the study, for example, or known controversies, or any documentation that would seem to refute the study's conclusions. The last section of the article usually covers suggestions for further research----implying that the conclusions are only part of an ongoing search for "truth." Also, in science, replications of the same study are not only expected, but serve to strengthen the first results. It is a compliment to the first researcher if others try to find the weak spots, or extend the exploration in some way.

Wow...I go away for a little while, and look what happens! I'm catching up with all your great posts. MaryPage, what a great story!

Anyway, I had been under the impression that Loewen had served some kind of an internship at the Smithsonian. Postdoctoral fellow is a step up, though.

I was teaching high school history during a textbook adoption year, so I have a more recent collection of textbooks than Loewen used. If I can find the websites for each of them, I'll post them here.

Not sure I can wait for the 15th... Ellen

MaryPage:

It was the simplest thing in the world. I used the Google search engine, typed in your g-grandfather's full name and -- BANG -- there it was, the first thing on the list!

Robby

Perhaps there should be a companion book to the Past Imperfect book about films and the historical errors they contain (or don't contain) anout historical fiction.

I was a great fan of the Michener(sp) novels until I took some courses on areas covered by some of them- namely "Mexico" and "Texas" and found all of the errors he introduced in his books to make the story better.

I have read all of Elizabeth Custer's books about her life with Custer. She writes very well and the books are interesting. Of course, she has a very narrow point of view and tends to glorify her husband.

She was a very intelligent observer of the life at Fort Abraham Linclon both army and Indian aspects of it.

Maybe Robbie could comment. but I think she identified herself with Custer and her continuation of the various Custer "myths" were more intended to satisfy her personal ego and identity than to perpetuate her memory of her husband. She must have known many of his failings intimately and could have written a great book showing us the real Custer.

Wonder what kind of books Hillary will write in years ahead when Bill is gone- never will find out I guess.

Jim, it seems that everyone who knew them at the time saw the relationship between the Custers as being a Real Romance. And folks liked Mrs. Custer as much as they despised him. They did not want to hurt her.

The U.S. did not want it known their army had screwed up big time, led by a loose cannon who should have never been given a command, let alone one in such a volatile situation. And they did not want family members of the men slaughtered to know their deaths should never have happened. They had to keep the public thinking the cavalry were the heroes out there saving American babies from the evil savages.

Betty, the Hares did not stay in Belton. Silas Hare, my ggg grandfather, moved the family to Sherman, Texas, and there are many Hare relations living there today. This ggg grandfather was a Congressman from Texas; 50th and 51st Congresses. When his terms were over, his wife refused to return to Texas, much preferring the amenities available in Washington, D.C., so ggg grandfather opened a law office in the District of Columbia and died there, being buried back in Sherman.

The Custer Romance may be another of the myths. It is true that he was once court martialed for taking her along on an expedition where she should not have been- (or was it for going back to visit her- maybe both) they tried to stay together as much as possible.

On the other hand, after the "Battle"- actually massacre of Indians at Washita it is generally accepted that Custer took an Indian mistress as an "interpreter".

Maybe Elziabeth just wanted to be near him to keep him in line.

Whatever, it is a fascinating aspect of history.

My favorite passage in one of Elizabeth's books is the one when she discusses the advice some of the men gave the women left at the fort- namely to keep one shot in a revolver for themselves to escape "a fate worse than death" if they are captured.

She speculates that she would decline to do that.

I don't know why- she doesn't elaborate- maybe because she knew enough about Indian culture to know that rape of captive women was, in fact, very rare.

I think she was wasted on Custer.

Jim, I gather that everyone who knew them felt the same. Good for you for having read her books!

I don’t think there are many Custer apologists active today. That will have to be left to Elizabeth Custer, his wife and 19th century romanticists who saw only glory in the event. I think the modern view is that he was at best another example of a talented individual driven by ambition into a fatal mistake. Also he resented the fact that post-Civil War economies effectively cost him his star. The tragedy is the loss of his men who died as the result. I think this is the assessment of most informed Americans today.

Custer’s position in American military history is in some respect comparable to that of Lord Cardigan in British History. Cardigan led the charge of the Light Brigade in the Crimea War in the 1850’s. . In that case he gave the charge command after misinterpreting an order from his superior who he resented and did not like. Cardigan survived even though as commander he was in the lead. I suppose some are just lucky and he was one of the few who made it back un-scratched.

Today Cardigan is probably better remember than Custer because of the continued popularity of the cardigan (note the small “c”) jacket style worn by him.

I peeked at the end of "Lies" this morning and I love the subtitle of the Afterword: "The Future Lies Ahead -- And What to Do about Them."

Reminds me of the motto of the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center in southwestern Colorado: "Our Future Lies in Ruins."

To say nothing of the title of a Pogo (Walt Kelly) comic book story from the 1950's: "Spring in the Air! (And Why You Should)."

I read Cecil Woodham-Smith's book about the Irish potato famine ("The Great Hunger") not long ago, and on my list of books to get and read is "The Reason Why," her book about Lord Cardigan, Lord Lucan, and the Charge of the Light Brigade.

MaryPage, how fascinating is your family history! Thanks for sharing it with us.

Katie: I liked Loevern’s use of the word “Afterword” as the title of his concluding chapter. I too used this word as the title of the concluding page of my “Pictures From the Past web essay. I used it even though there is no such word according to Microsoft. I can’t say where but I am quite sure I have seen the word used by others. But enter “afterword” in MS Word and it is underscored in red as a misspelling of “afterward.”

Well, Harold, that's what you get for taking off'n Microsoft, which is by no means an authority on the language. There are a LOT of perfectly good words that the MS Word spellchecker doesn't know. For example, it doesn't even recognize "disestablishment," let alone "antidisestablishmentarianiam." And Richard Lederer and Charles Harrington Elster have pointed out a lot of errors in the Encarta dictionary.

To my surprise, I found that "afterword" does not appear in either my 1962 Webster-On-a-Bridge or my 1968 Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary. However, the online Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary has it, noun meaning "epilogue," and says it dates to 1890.

I think it is a logical derivative from "foreword," which derives from the German vorwort, a preface, and is in both my dictionaries. If you can have a foreword, surely you can have an afterword. I have seen it used so much that it didn't even "bump" me. What tickled my nannygoat was the wordplay on "lies."

Any of you who live anywhere near here need to get here this weekend. Should be the peak of this year's fall colors. I turn my back on this group for a few days and, wow! We get bits on Custer, the Crimean War, and who knows what all (or, to quote a little more Pogo, what knows who all.) As to computer constructs on language, allow me to suggest computer literacy as the major oxymoron of our age. I mean, when you put Latin in some obscure part of Romania where it is still spoken (sort of), we know you didn't major in humanities! The illiteracies in most spellcheck programs are truly shocking. I predict Homer will be good and dead by mid-century or earlier, along with Horace, Vergil, Ovid (now there's a loss), and many others.

I have the book and hope I'm not too intimidated by all of you history buffs to come in here and post after I read it.

Mal

My book arrived yesterday, and I have read the Introduction and most of Chapter One.

Can hardly WAIT to begin this discussion! A very well written book, by the way.

My book is due here the 12th! Can't wait...

Eddie

Here's an interesting exercise to test the literacy of your spellchecker. Open your abridged dictionary at random and type 12 words in sequence into an MS Word document. You can skip combining forms and obviously foreign or highly technical words to make it a fairer test. See, in a dozen words chosen at random, how many red underlines you get.

In 5 tries, I never got less than one unrecognized word, and in two cases the spellchecker failed to recognize 5 words out of 12.

I once took on the task of writing a spell/grammar checker.

It ain't easy. Deciding , for example, if "ain't" is the British "correct" form for or the American vulgar can be difficult.

One of the nice features with most modern (mine was very limited at a time when most PC's had 512 k RAM or less)spell checkers is that you are allowed to add words of your own choosing to it. This you can fine tune your spell checker to meet whatever your needs are.

You could add all of the words in the OED or whatever dictionary you choose.

Mine worked on the principle of looking for common mis-spellings and not checking each word to see if it had a dictionary entry. I had to do it that way becasue most PC's did not have room for a dictionary full of words or the speed to check them rapidly.

I have a problem with my Dell 600 MH desktop. Dell help proonounced another reformat as the only solution. This operation did not go easy last May and today after the format ran the reinstallation of Windows was unsuccessful on th e first try. I'll have to get back with Dell tomorow. I'll have to limp into our discussion this weekend with the notebook and a keybord I really hate for writing posts.

Now that I am into this book, I have a problem with the speed at which we are scheduled to read and discuss. It is not the reading itself that troubles me, for this book is an extremely easy one to breeze right along in. It is the sheer amount of stuff in each chapter to chew on. I think we are going to require a week, or at least 4 or 5 days, for each TOPIC!

Okay, Jim, all I can say is you must be a glutton for punishment! To write a spell/grammar checker, yet! I stand in "awr" of you, as our Ginny quotes from the Sopranos, I believe. As for me, I find it's even easier to sit with a dictionary nearby, really, not that I use it as much as I really should.

Never fear, Mary Page, there will be plenty of time to "chew over" what we've read. And I don't think it's written in stone that we have to end the discussion exactly on the day scheduled for quits. I'm looking forward to hearing what you have to say!

Lorrie

Too-shay (as we say in Lubbock) to Henry Misbach for noting (in #83) that "computer literacy" is the major oxymoron of our age! (My 1980 Random House dictionary has "afterword", defined correctly as "a concluding section, commentary, etc., as of a book").

The Texas Songbird has wisely pointed out that natural stupidity will always beat artificial intelligence.

I use a Merriam-Webster online dictionary and thesaurus. I wonder if it is a shortened version or the real thing. I haven't run into difficulties yet and I must look up 2 or 3 things every day.

I have finished the book and one of the problems I had with it was not the number of details but the focus on several areas of detail all dealing with social issues involving the histroical roles of American Indians and people of African origin.

I think he is correct in pointing out the many errors high school history texts contain in these areas- and in the general misconceptions they portray.

One area I became aware of that is not included in the book, is the general area of misconceptions most "Americans" have of the history of Canada particularly as it relates to US history. When I first became active on the net, the livliest senior forums were centered in the Freenet movement in several Canadain cities mostly the one in Ottawa where I learned how utterly ignorant I was of Canadian history and of many misconceptions I had about it.

Hi, Jim We have a few Canadian people posting on Seniornet, perhaps we should open a general discussion of Canadian History. I have absolutely no knowledge of the subject and it would be interesting in itself and, of course, how it relates to American History. Wasn't the Hudson Bay Company in Canada, I vaguely remember it in early history?

You've finished the book already! I hope you've made notes along the way so you can help us in the exploration and discussion of Loewen's book. Did you find him at times repetitive?

If I click "Lies..." in the Index that's printed in blue, I get Madame Mao.

Hi Ed: I'll see if I can get that fixed - at least, I know who CAN do it, I'll email her. So glad you're with us and this is going to be a great discussion - I think we start it off tomorrow or is Monday? I don't have a calendar on the desk here, but soooooooon.

Ohhhhhhh! Drat! Just got an e-mail from B&N saying that my books that I ordered back on the 7th, (with 24 hr. availability) cannot be shipped from there, until 10-13! boo hoo! Oh well...it will be here soon.

Eddie

Rambler is becoming increasingly frustrated in trying to highlight, copy, and paste. Can someone with more technical expertise than I please give him a Link leading him to a forum where he can easily learn?

Robby

Jim, I think even Loewen doesn't propose to rewrite all of American history, and I certainly agree that there is an issue concerning focus. Regrettably, I have to lay it ultimately at the feet of those who were responsible and permitted these blind spots to go unnoticed for so long. What we're seeing is only the mirror image of what historians have preferred to avoid. Today I was able to exploit a local university library's holdings to get a look at Dirksen's comments in 1969 in the Congressional Record. He mentions the Russian incursion of 1917-20, noting however that some of the "Bolsheviki" fought with, not against U.S. military. Since there wasn't much political ground to the right of Ol' Ev, I thought his remarks would be of interest.

He mentions the Russian incursion of 1917-20, noting however that some of the "Bolsheviki" fought with, not against U.S. military. Since there wasn't much political ground to the right of Ol' Ev, I thought his remarks would be of interest.

My college course in the Russin Revolution goes back over 50 years so I am speaking from the distant past, but as I recall that course (which did go into some detail on our participation) a lot depended on how you define "Bolsheviki"- there were many factions (as there are in all revolutions- and the factions within ours are usually not covered well in our history books) so it is entirely possible to point out x fighting with y against z in all kinds of combinations in any revoilution.

One of the reasons many revolutions end in a blood bath is just this internal fighting at the end to establish the dominant faction.

I think one of the Loewen's problems was his focus on specific individuals like Wilson.

But maybe he does that because he feels so strongly that history has so misunderstood Wilson and credited him where he deserves more blame than credit.

On the other hand he credits Lincoln where other historians see little credit- particulary in his attitude toward slavery.

I wonder if he doesn't fall into the same error he sees in others- namely making heroes (and villians in his case) where they don't exist.

Jim, I understand the point you make. I took this volume, from the intro on, to be just an EXAMPLE of errors our public school textbooks make.

Everything in this book can be learned from many, many books of history. The problem is, they are not TEXTBOOKS. There are literally thousands, if not tens of thousands, of books written by college history professors, journalists, and just plain history buffs, which are throughly researched and quite truthful. There are also, unfortunately, books written by persons who wish to cover up, revise, or distort history to further an ideology.

Rare is the college history professor who has not published at least one book on one facet of history. Many have written quite a number of highly accurate, well-sourced histories.

Then there are the myriad biographies and autobiographies. Further, a lot of published journals, diaries and estate books from long, long ago.

So the bottom line would seem to be that there is no rational excuse for serving up so many myths at taxpayer expense for our American population to assimilate and believe. Not all of our population get to college, and not all of the portion that does take any American history classes. How then are we to have an electorate capable of assessing the Lessons of History, the Causes, Cases and Results of history, if they are taught only the victories and none of the mistakes of our past?

Perhaps if our populace had all been well versed in Wilson's sending troops into foreign civil wars and the results thereof, we might never have gone through our Viet Nam disaster.

Instead, our mind set is that we are invincible and Anything we set out to do, we can accomplish. We are the U.S. of A! It is a wonderful thing to love our homeland, but quite another to see ourselves as Superior in all things to the other nations of this world.

Mary Page: an interesting comment about how we might have benefited from knowing the truth in history as to future involvement in conflicts, like the Vietnam war.

Okay, everybody, are we all ready for our “grand opening” tomorrow? Before we begin I wanted to interject a reminder here. We realize that many issues in this book will seem controversial to some of you posters, but in posting your arguments pro or con, we ask above everything else, to please present your case in a courteous way, a simple reminder to use just plain old-fashioned “good manners.”

I know tomorrow is officially our scheduled beginning, but I wanted to make some comments first about the Introduction. Mr. Loewen states that American History classes are the least popular with students, and he contributes this to the fact that most history classes are dominated by text books.

“These textbooks leave out anything that might reflect badly upon our national character,” he says, “thus making them sound like a mumbling lecturer.”

Do you agree with this?

Lorrie

Lorrie:

Congratulations upon a beautiful new forum which is obviously ready to roll! After you open tomorrow, I invite you to place a Link in Democracy in America asking people to visit your new Discussion Group. I'm sure that the type of people who are active in DinA would also be interested in American History.

Robby

Robby, what a great idea, and thank you for your gracious offer. Yes, the current subjects seem interelated, somehow. Good idea.

Lorrie

There may not be a "rational excuse" for the way high school history texts are written, but there are certainly many explanations for why they are. Lowen covers that at the end of the book failrly well.

In fact, the explanations and the process of distorting history at that level is itself a topic of some historical interest.

Maybe we can discuss that as we move along as well.

Lorrie In answer to your question I have one comment I would like to make before beginning the first chapter. This author is making the assumption that history teachers use only one textbook, the one approved for their school, and he has this to say about history teachers in general:

If they have a lot of time, light domestic reponsibilities, sufficient resources and a flexible principal, some teachers respond by abandoning the overstuffed textbooks......All too many teachers grow disheartened and settle for less.....

Isn't this a very broad assumption? Are all history teachers alike? Are all students alike? What a general statement in the Introduction, particularly in the very first sentence wherein he states "when they list their favorite subjects, history invariably comes in last. Students consider history 'the most irrelevant' of 21 subjects commonly taught in high school."

I can only speak from experience. I loved history - it was my favorite subject in high school and may be the beginning of a life-long love of biographies, of historical figures, etc. I have never forgotten the great teacher I was privileged to learn history from and she made it come alive for us. We debated issues, we were graded on oral presentations in those debates.

No doubt Loewen has studied students' reactions to subjects or he could not make such broad statements. But there are exceptions, I am one - are there any others among us?

Aside from girls (who utterly ignored me), I didn't have a favorite subject in highschool. Highschool was marginally more enjoyable than the Army, and college was marginally more enjoyable than highschool.

I do recall being puzzled, in the late 1940s, that highschool history books never got much beyond the Wilson years. But most everything that voters and voters-to-be were discussing in the '40s began with New Deal in the '30s.

I wonder if today's highschool principals and adminstrators intentionally steer clear of contemporary events because Jonathan or Jennifer may go home and suggest to parents that their teacher is partisan in one way or another?

Rambler, girls in our day ALWAYS utterly ignored the guys. We were supposed to! You, on the other hand, were supposed to chase us until we caught you.

But that worked out for you anyway.

History was my favorite subject as well, Ella. I had an extremely unusual English History teacher in 8th grade who absolutely lived and breathed her subject. After that, I did the same with every history I studied, but from that year on I found I lived and breathed the particular course I was studying more deeply than any of the instructors did! Ergo, I am inclined to believe our author is correct.

Rambler, I think you've hit a vein of real truth there. Our textbooks have probably been sanitized to offend no quarter. Of course, in Real Life that cannot be accomplished!

We have two witnesses, MaryPage and myself, who had great history teachers and two students who loved history.

We have a history teacher following this discussion who says she uses this book as a supplement to teach her class.

Both of the above statements contradict Loewen's statements that teachers are too lazy to use supplemental books to teach and that students do not like history.

Any other remarks about teachers and students?

I managed to tolerate History going through all those dates, etc. But I was always an avid reader. About 2-3 years beyond high school when I was in the world of work and had matured a bit, I was spending a lot of time commuting on the railroad and was reading Gibbons' Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. I began to compare the people I was reading about with the people I was meeting in everyday life -- and lo and behold, History became interesting.

Robby

MaryPage: Re #108 and 109 regarding girls: Howcum, by the time you learn life's rules, the game is ending? Or the rules have changed in a way that does you no damn good?

In grade school, our American History textbooks were so bad, by today's standards, or any standards, for that matter, they actually had pictures of a Native American titled, "The Red Man," then one of an Asian person, titled "The Yellow Man," and finally a piture of an African, titled "The Black Man." I kid you not. Of course, this was way back in the early 30's, but isn't it sad that that ugly section is all I can remember of grade school history?

Lorrie

I am one of those students who did not like history. I tended to like Science and Math. Girls aren't supposed to like Science and Math so I guess I am an exception there. I had a good social studies teacher in 8th grade but not enough for me to change the things that interested me.

What interesting posts. My experience is similar to yours, MaryPage, a (pretty) good history teacher before high school but none during.

Those who let me down the most were boring math teachers, though, so I can't say that history teachers were the worst. (It wasn't until I was almost 40 and learning advanced math "from square one" to take the GRE for graduate school that I discovered I have a natural gift for math.) As an undergraduate, I had asked for special permission to take extra foreign language and extra history courses to take the place of math courses (at that time convinced I couldn't do math).

That's when I sat in a magician's class. History was magic, and we were under this professor's spell every minute of every class. No matter what decade of American history we were in, it felt like we were there, living it. Strangely enough, this was in a large auditorium with several hundred students. After the first few weeks, many of us began getting to class earlier and earlier, trying to get seats in the first few rows. Once, maybe toward the middle of the semester, I left class and went straight to the history section of the library and wandered around, touching books, reading titles, finally pulling out 5 or 6 to take over to a reading table. One was about the Russian revolution of 1918, still one of my favorite subjects.

The next time the class met, I told someone what I'd done at the library and she said she'd never been in a history section of a library. Neither had I, I told her. For the rest of the semester, she and I, then one other, started meeting at the library in the history section. I think that's where my love of maps began. One of the other students, an art major, began to think of combining art and history in some way.

To this day, whenever I'm in a library, I think of going through the history section---for all kinds of reasons, one of which is to feel that first love of BOOKS, actually. My love of reading dates from that particular history class. Even though what I read today is more fiction than nonfiction (still rebelling from years of assigned nonfiction reading), what I most love in fiction is if the author can take me to another time and place as successfully as that history teacher---Dr. Marks, I just remembered his name. Detailed and complex historical fiction, ah, there's nothing better.

There are three of us that liked history and all women - I'm not sure what that signifies, but perhaps we shouldn't get into that.

LORRIE Your experience in grade school reminded me of the song we used to sing in Sunday School, perhaps all of you remember it.

Jesus loves the little children
All the children of the world
Red and yellow, black and white
They are precious in his sight
Jesus loved the little children of the world

And we white children sang the song with a picture of a white Jesus on the walls of the Sunday school classroom.

I liked history in high school. In fact it was my favorite subject. I remember my first course in history as a freshman in 1941. The teacher's name was Mrs.. McGruter. She talked very fast saying that it was an airplane world and we must do every thing at airplane speed (including talking it seemed). The course was World history that began with Stone Age man. Mrs McGruter had a copy of van Loon's "The Story of Mankind", or something like that. I was impressed by its opening metaphor that described a great rock a hundred miles long, a hundred miles wide and a hundred miles high. Once every hundred years a little bird visited the rock to sharpen its beak. When the rock was entirely worn away, a single day of eternity had passed. Wow, that is a long time , I thought.

Later I took American history and Texas history. Thinking back, I am sure our history texts were full of many of the lies we are talking about in current high school history texts.

Mary Page, Ella, Betty Gregory, and now Harold, all say they liked their history teachers, only Marjorie and I weren't that crazy about the subject. So one begins to wonder, a little, about whether Mr. Loewen's surmise might be a little too broad. That was a vivid description of your History professor, Betty!

Rambler, I agree with what you think might be one of the reasons teachers shy away from teaching contemporary events.

Lorrie

CHAPTER ONE

The author here feels that the "heroification" of Helen Keller, for instance, omits many important facts about her activities during her adult years. So many of us rely on what we learned from the movie that concentrated on the stuggle the Sullivan woman had to make contact, and very little was written about her involvement with social changes at the time. When she was still one of the most famous women of that time, she was also the most notorious, because of her "radical" theories.

I find it ironic that the same newspapers who had extolled this woman's courage and intelligence then turned to personal attacks and emphasized her handicap. All this is not something we learned in history classes. In short, Helen Keller was "herofied," but for the wrong reasons, in my opinion.

Lorrie

Harold:

In my home library I still have the very same copy of Van Loon's "Story of Mankind" which I owned as a boy. It is an absolutely marvelous marvelous book. And, would you believe, I have on more than one occasion quoted his remark about eternity to some of my patients. I have never heard a more explicit way of describing something which is almost indescribable.

as a matter of fact, I still own many many books I had given to me or obtained when I was a boy. And it has nothing to do with not being able to throw them away. To me they are treasures and in my moments of "extra time" (which seem to be less as the years pass) I have pulled them out and leaved through them. Another example are Sandburg's books about Lincoln. These biographies certainly helped me to see the history of our nation. My father used to give me Biographies as gifts (Andrew Carnegie, Theodore Roosevelt, etc) and I truly believe that reading them helped to form my character. In an earlier post, here or in another forum, someone mentioned the "Lincoln Library." It is a massive tome about 5" thick divided up into History, Geography, Science, Literature, etc. etc. That was given to me when I was about six (I was able to read long before going to school) and it the equivalent of a set of encyclopaeia. That, also, helped me to understand the History of the world, never mind just this nation.

Robby

LORRIE: I am enjoying this discussion and my copy of the book hasn't arrived yet. I am not sure this is a good place to take a poll to see if the author's conclusion that people don't like history is correct. We are, after all, all here to see what "Lies" our teachers told us and discuss them.

ROBBIE: Thanks for reminding me about Carl Sandburg's books about Lincoln. I started to read them once but didn't get very far. Maybe if I try again now from this vantage point.

Marjorie

Marjorie: I wasn't aware that we were "taking a poll." Asking our posters if they agree with the author's assessments is not quite the same, I believe. We're not keeping a toll of who says what, etc. Anyway, all opinions are welcome, that's what this page is all about.

Lorrie

I agree with Majorie, as it also seems to me extremely unlikely that anyone who does NOT like History is going to join us in reading and discussing this book.

EVERYBODY: I am sorry if my previous post was taken the wrong way. I can be too literal at times. I am definitely enjoying looking at history from the eyes of people who are fascinated by the subject. How else is it possible to ever get interested in it myself? I think all the great teachers you are all talking about were great because history fascinated them. The book we are discussing seems to be one that should make history interesting even to those of us who weren't interested initially.

Marjorie

Hoo Boy! We're not even started yet, and I'm getting a slap on the wrist! Okay, Ladies, mea culpa, mea culpa!

However, let's not take the focus off the main points of Chapter one, here. Does anyone else have comments about what history has told us about Helen Keller?

Thank you, Marjorie. That was very gracious!

Lorrie

LORRIE: The only comment I would make about Hellen Keller is that I am one of the ones who only knows what the movie said. Vaguely in the back of my mind I heard some other things. I can't wait to get my book.

Lorrie:--For those of us who don't yet have the book, can any comments be made which will help us to react? Or are we totally out of the picture until we have the book?

Robby

Please, don't hold back simply because your copy of the book hasn't arrived yet. If nothing else, tell us about whether you questioned some of the things you learned in American History later on, and why? What had you been taught about Woodrow Wilson, for example? All comments are welcome!

Lorrie

I was taught that Woodrow Wilson wrote the 14 points (whatever they were!), that he guided the United States in winning the "war to end all wars," that he wanted us to belong to the League of Nations but that he was thwarted (we didn't use that term in high school) by Congress, that he had a stroke, and that from then on Mrs. Wilson was, for all practical purposes, the President of the United States.

You now have my complete summary of what I learned about Woodrow Wilson.

Robby

Ok Lorrie, here is a quick post on the first chapter. To open Loewen centers on three examples were high school history textbooks have distorted understanding of historical characters. Principally three were mentioned, Helen Keller, Woodrow Wilson and Betsey Ross.

Quickly after beginning the book, I (and I suspect most other readers) learned that facts they learned in high school history were not true. My concept of Helen Keller was exactly as the book predicted that her fame sprang from her successful struggle to overcome her several physical handicaps. Never had I read of her as a socialist activist.. Likewise, I had never read of Wilson's racist sympathies and I never realized the number of his interventions in Latin America. In high school American history the book ended with a chapter on WW I, but we did not get to it. The teacher said it was too contemporary to be history. It was still in1942 a current event. My understanding of Wilson formulated in the late WW II and early post war period was that he was an idealist struggling for approval of the League of Nations as a means of avoiding future world conflicts like the great war that had just ended and WW II that was yet to come.. As to Betsey Ross as I think about it, I can not now recall any actual representations that she actually designed the flag, but that was most certainly the implication.

There is another interesting point alluded to in the first chapter. The question is asked, is Chester Arthur more deserving of space than Frank Lloyd Wright? In other words who influences us more today, the President who signed the first civil service bill,, or the inventor of the car port and designer of many great buildings and structures. I would quickly vote for Arthur. I note his change (probably mostly due to political considerations) from "spoils system" champion to civil service reformer. Note the comparison with LBJ who after 2 senate terms leading the opposition to civil rights legislation as President called for and signed the landmark civil rights bills into law.

And Robby: I too have a copy of the van Loon book, but mine was acquired at a Brandise book sale in the 1960's. I too remember it as a great book for high school history reading. Also I began reading history on my own while stationed on Ulithi in the Pacific in the closing months of WW II. It was the three volume H.G.Wells, "Outline of History." He was quite the iconclast,in pointing out the temporary nature of Europena dominence of world culture. When our base closed just a few months after the War ended, I acquired these books from our library. They are still in my library today.

I believe this was brought up earlier but what documentation "proves" that what Loewen tells us is not "lies."

Robby

Don't have my book yet and sitting here thinking. I was wondering what factors have influenced the un-influencibility of history. Money? Timing? Focus? Were we so busy accepting the changes (and printing costs) of new maths and ever changing sciences that history was ignored for a while?

Or something altogether different. In science, one talks of hard science and soft science---hard science (quantifiable facts,i.e., parts of a plant) is respected and soft science (descriptions of life, i.e., coping styles of recovering alcoholics) is less respected. I wonder if "history" has heretofore been thought of as a "hard," static study. The war started on this date and ended on this date---what's to question?

I also wonder if discoveries in science have begun to solve mysteries in history---which, indirectly, points to implied gaps or mistakes in history. I'm thinking of DNA testing of bones found in a Russian well to prove/disprove deaths of the czar's family (Romanov). That would be an example of "hard" science, I suppose. Maybe an example of "soft" science influencing "history" would be the greater recognition of women and other previous, so-called minority groups, therefore, a need to fill in those previously silent gaps.

Robby, the book is saturated with footnotes, and the index is almost larger than the book. The names cited in the beginning are so numerous as to have caused me to look up my maiden name (just in case) in the alphabetical listing. His credentials are solid gold and he is backed by the Smithsonian. He gives at least one source for everything.

Robby's list of what he knew about Wilson is an echo of my own, with the single exception that AFTER I was all finished with school and that was the sum total of my knowledge, I did join the History Book Club and purchase and read a lot of history and DID learn about our interfering in the Caribbean and Latin America.

I am SO excited about this book and SO grateful to you who started this discussion, because Chapter One filled in some very important questions in my mind that JUST DID NOT add up!

(1) Why did the Russians, who were our ALLIES in WWII, and to whom we gave the means to fight off the Germans, and who, with us, encircled and brought the Germans to their knees, turn cold and suspicious towards us IMMEDIATELY after the end of hostilities? Why did they become our deadly enemies? I just never could figure this. Communism is so different, I was told. Communists are paranoid, I was told. This just was not enough for my mind to wrap around. I loved the Russian peoples and suffered for their 20 million dead in WWII. I admired their fighting, and especially the battles for Stalingrad and Lenengrad (St. Petersburg). If you have never read the books by those titles, DO! Just COULD NOT figure their hating us so. Well, this book tells us what I did not know! Fills in the gap I could not find! We fought against them in their own Civil War! We invaded their country and fought against the Very People still in power after WWII! Their fighting beside us in that war turns out to have been sheer necessity, not the friendship and comradeship I had assumed. Why did I never find a SINGLE allusion to this all during the Cold War?

(2) I knew there had been a seemingly very successful integration of the races after the Civil War. I knew about the black office holders and the tracking down and almost eradication of the Ku Klux Klan. Then it got bad again. Real bad. But I could not figure out why. Never, ever did I read about what happened. I feel sick that there was such a cover up of what Everyone knew at the time it was happening: i.e. it was an extremely racist Woodrow Wilson! What a Dreadful legacy this one president left us! I am appalled.

OK, MaryPage, you sold me! I'll be getting a copy soon.

Robby

All the American history I got in school was at the elementary and high school level. When I went to college, I figured, I've been studying American history all my life, it's time I learned something about the rest of the world. So all my college history courses (some of which were wonderful) were on European and "world" history. Of course, as an adult I have read a lot of American history to make up for it.

In my high school history class, the teacher went around the room having each student read aloud a paragraph from the text. Once in a while he would make a comment about the text, but mostly he just let it speak for itself. The text was boring and half the kids in the class struggled to read it aloud. Then once a week we would have a quiz. (He was a part-time barber, and I always hoped he was better at cutting hair than at teaching history.) I'm not sure we ever got to Woodrow Wilson, because every year we went back to Columbus and started over.

I am sure there are many dedicated high school history teachers who "teach against the text," as Loewen puts it. He acknowledges them. The problem is that for those who don't have the time, interest, or ability to use other resources, the texts they are given to work with are awful.

I do not have the book but i can tell you that when i watch things about Canada on your major media i shake my head in wonderment. Do your media never think beyond their own borders and listeners? Truth is so bent sometimes it is hard to believe, you believe it.

Okay, (ducking)....i'll be quiet.

)

I have the book, but have only read the first chapter and probably will not go farther. (If I keep spending time reading and discussing books, I will NEVER learn to run this computer.)

My copy of the book is from the library. Those of you who are awaiting delivery may want to check your library for a copy to tide you over. My copy has the Dewey number 973LOE.

Rambler, do you understand how few of us know the fancy computer things to do? I know how to make my letters bold, but not how to add color or much of anything else. Bold letters require putting the letter b at the beginning and /b at the end of a word or words---in between < and >. I'll use quotes instead of < > to illustrate---"b"then type what you want bold then "/b"---but use < > to surround the b and the /b. Now you know everything I know.

Idris, you are absolutely right. We are woefully ignorant of things Canadian in our grasp of history, but I do believe the Loewen does go into the historical aspect of Canada when he talks about the Indian Wars, later in the book.

Harold, our impression of Woodrow Wilson, as taught us, was of a gentlemanly, kind old President, a former Princeton dean (?) who, we were taught, let us into peace with the League of Nations. These revelations about both Helen Keller and Wilson come as a complete surprise.

Betty: Your concept of "hard" science, especially as used to corroborate or deny things, is intriguing to me. The part about using DNA to verify the remains of the Czar's family, especially!

Robby: Mary Page is correct. This book is loaded with reference material as you will discover.

Lorrie

Hey, you know, not everyone wants to go along with Loewen's flat-out statements. Do you like to read both comments, pro and con, on a subject? Professor Kerr, of the website Home Page for History, assigned a critique of this book to members of a seminar in his history classes, and this is what one of them wrote about "Lies My Teacher Told Me."

Sullivan's Report

Lorrie

Sullivan's comments are exactly what I was referring to. He points out that Loewen falls in the same trap of presenting his statements as "facts" and not just additional theories. I imagine the best approach to this book is not to be too "hardnosed" but to use this book as a tool for stimulating the old grey matter. Learning to be a little less naive in accepting what historians, teachers, governmental representives, TV anchor people, newspaper reporters, columnists,and even our own parents tell us.

Robby

Canada did not have "Indian Wars" while at the same time i can state as a fact that we were not kind to them after they were no longer needed as hunters.

I am not too happy at the concept of putting possibilities or probabilities under the title "Lies". I see no reason why we need anything but the known facts in our public school history textbooks. My unhappiness lies not in omission of theories concerning groups of people who may have visited America in pre-Columbian times. Rather, I am disturbed by total glorification of every thing our country or one of our country's leaders has ever done and omission or cover up of the true facts. My desire is not to tear down my country, but to own up to truth and learn from the mistakes we have made. How can the human race improve if it does NOT learn from its mistakes? Experience is how we all learn, goodness knows. It is the best teacher of any. But if our children only hear how GREAT everything in our past is, they not only will not learn from this past, but they will be overwhelmed by it and not feel they can live up to it.

MaryPage:--Following your thought -- would you include that approach with present day events as well as with historical events? After all, we are in the minute-to-minute process of making history. Should Clinton's acts in the Oval Office have been publicized and should they be included in the updated history books or should that remain "hidden?" What about various peccadillos by other presidents such as Jefferson fathering a child by a slave?

Robby

I do not see any reason for the sexual lives of our leaders being either in the textbooks or the newspapers. If the person molests his/her children or beats up his/her spouse, they have broken the law and should be prosecuted in the courts just as anyone else. Any law breaking should be prosecuted and be in newspapers and, briefly, in textbooks, just like Harding's Teapot Dome scandal. But the gossipy and or scandalous stuff should only be in non-textbook histories and biographies and autobiographies.

What Wilson did in the matter of his racial policies was public information and impacted on the public. It was public knowledge at the time, and changed our history. It should have been included in the textbooks. A President or other public servant having sex, whatever the situation OUTSIDE of it being with a minor, is none of our business. I am not condoning adulterous behavior, just believing it is not part of the history of our NATION. It is personal history.

MaryPage:--You said (Post 143) that you are "concerned about the omission or cover up of true facts." I gather further that you make an exception if it has something to do with sex (which you describe as gossipy or scandalous). As textbooks are written for the schools, who determines this? Who determines what is gossipy or scandalous? If these facts are omitted, doesn't that give the students a less-than-true picture of the person? Who are we protecting - the public individual or the pupil? If I understand you correctly, your defining line is whether "it changes history." Does a Presdent's private habits ever affect his behavior to the point that it changes history?

Robby

Oh, dear, all of you are way beyond me in this book, but I have several comments to make regarding what has already been stated by some of you.

Robby - In the first two chapters of this book, I was constantly going to the sources listed to see where Loewen got his facts - it is obvious he read other books - loads and loads of other books. To me, that is not documentation unless we read the same books and identified where those authors got their facts from. Who has the time to do it?

One of you stated that the Smithsonian is backing this book. I did not get that impression from what I see in this book. The Smithsonian did award the author a postdoc fellowship - that is not the same as "backing" the author's word.

Quoting from the Introduction:

Between the glossy covers, American history textbooks are full of information-overly full. These books are huge. The specimens in my collection of a dozen of the most popular texbooks average four and a half pounds in weight and 888 pages in length.

That is a fact - that can be proven. And yet, this author would add pages and pages of "neglected" facts to these same textbooks. What, I ask myself, would he take out?

How much better it would be, in my opinion, for teachers to assign students outside reading and having them either write papers or have them do an oral presentation on Helen Keller's life, etc. Certainly, those fact about Woodrow Wilson's racist policies should be included in every textbook - we have whitewashed our heroes. But adding pages of fact about Helen Keller's life is not adding what is necessary to history is it?

Quoting Loewen "....our educational media turn flesh-and-blood individuals into pious, perfect creatures without conflicts, pain, credibility, or human interest."

History is doing better as the author notes from time to time. Witness the media's concentration on Jefferson's affair with a black slave woman and his many children dating to the present. Also in the past five or so years, Columbus has been de-herofied as we all know and some cities are refusing to celebrate Columbus Day. Perhaps it takes a few hundred years to get it all straightened out?

A very small item in the Intro made me smile. The author used the word factoids the first time and put the word in quotes, but after that the word is used with no quotes. Does this mean that from now on factoids is a legitimate word? Why is it when the word "fact" is just as meaningful and is a simpler word? Why are we padding words?

Still in the Intro - this statement which is the crux of the book I believe and that is to teach students skepticism:

Because textbooks employ such a godlike tone, it never occurs to most students to question them. 'In retrospect I ask myself, why didn't I think to ask, for example, who were the original inhabitants of the Americas, what was their life like and how did it change when Columbus arrived,' wrote a student of mine in 1991. She continued 'However, back then everything was presented as it if were the full picture....so I never thought to doubt that it was.' As a result of all this, most high school seniors are hamstrung in their efforts to analyze controversial issues in our society."

Also in the Intro I thought it fascinating that the author co-wrote a revisionist history textbook about Mississippi which was rejected in the state to use in public schools. The author and three local school systems sued the state textbook board and won a sweeping victory.

Sorry about the length of the post! I'll get to Chapter One soon (which perhaps you would just as soon I didn't?- haha).

Robby, I expect if a President were an alcoholic or a drug addict, it would most definitely affect his behavior in a way that was not good for the nation. I simply cannot see how a person's private sex life can affect the nation, unless he is having pillow talk with a spy, and here the FBI and CIA would intervene and Fast. They are aware of what a President is doing at all times.

In our history, there are few Presidents who have not had Some talk about their love life. Geo Washington and Sally Fairfax, and counting from there. In reading history and learning its lessons, one of the ones I have learned is that powerful people are rarely monogamous. I believe it is not deeply ingrained in the human animal to be so, and that powerful people have more opportunities and temptations than most of us. You have to have an enormous dollop of DARING in you just to take on the reins of power. Shyer, hold-back types do not tend to have the reckless hubris these public figures seemingly must have in order to be able to live in the constant spotlight.

Please note that I am making observations here that have nothing at all to do with religion or morals. I comment on what IS, and not what we would perhaps like to BE.

Ella:--So much of what you say is good solid stuff.

1 - Quoting from another book which, in turn, quotes from a third book, etc. is not documentation. If a usually honest White House aide tells me that the President had a woman in with him and he tells me he knows that is so because another honest person told him -- it "might" be true but it is not documented. If the aide testifies to his under oath and, in addition, the President admits it, that is documentation.
2 - I agree. Giving a person a post-doc Fellowship is not the same as backing the person. In fact, the donor of the Fellowship often writes a disclaimer and states neutrality.
3 - Again I agree. Outside reading is an excellent of "disproving" things and even there that may not be documentation, per se, but it is more objective.
4 - The use or non-use of quote marks is no small item. We need to know if these are the author's words or someone else's.

Skepticism, in my opinion, is a healthy thing. I have for years described myself as an "open-minded sceptic." The two need to go together. For a decade I worked closely with research psychologists on the federal level and they would poo-poo me when I spoke of the possibility of telepathy. They said: "There is no proof it exists." I answered: "There is no proof it does not exist." In my opinion, they were not open-minded and therefore, not approaching research openly -- that is, not drawing up the conclusion in advance without documentation.

Loewen, by writing such a book, is inviting our being sceptics to his writing as well as to the writing of others. I assume he is open to this.

Robby

MaryPage:--Paris of Troy had an affair with Queen Helen of Sparta. Her husband found out about it and there was a terrible bloody war.

Robby

You realize, of course, that I have no documentation about Paris and Helen. For all I know, they could have been playing Scrabble.

Robby

Ella, your comments about the Introduction were very apt. I wal also impressed by the fact that Loewen and a fellow author sued the state of Mississippi and won, citing the First and Fourteenth Amendments. A sweeping victory, I might add!

Mary Page and Robbie, both your statements have merit. Just how far should history books go in stating known facts about a President's sexual preferences, for instance. I'm inclined to agree with Mary Page, unless it is something that adversely affected the state of our country, let the tabloids have it!

But to move on a bit further: Did anyone seem surprised to learn the true reasons for Columbus to sail for these parts? I, for one, was sickened to learn about what these "adventurers" brought to the various shores that they reached. Epidemic sickness, greed, a dictatorial regime, and cruelty. Also, there seems to be some doubt as to whether Columbus was the first European to reach the West Indies. What say you?

Lorrie

If we keep sex out of history books, should we also keep violence out of them?

Robby

I disliked history as a high school student (the worse course I ever took in high school was American History taught by a woman who sent Christmas Cards to herself, totally boring)... and was miserable at it in college. Kept getting papers back saying, "This is the most creative thing I ever read, but it doesn't have one thing to with the subject." hahhaha Gives you some idea of my grasp of the subject.

I don't care for "history," now, as general "history," so here we have one person who will be a true point- counterpoint. Somewhere along the way I got the impression "history" was all memorization of dates and battles, commanders and facts, without regard for the real, true, and exciting stories of the past. I have a lot to learn, still.

Woodrow Wilson was presented to me as a visionary, a person unlike any other who single handedly gave us the United Nations.

All I know to this day about Helen Keller was the miraculous training as she receieved as a child.

I know Columbus did not discover America, but what ARE you going to tell a child about who DID on Columbus Day?

ginny

The United Nations had a predecessor, The League of Nations. Who was responcible for the idea? It was Lester Pearson, a Prime Minister of Canada, who won the Nobel Peace Prize.

You can't keep sex out of history any more than you can war and violence. It is all part of the human condition.

It has recently been discovered, in the North Eastern portion of North America that the Egyptians were here some thousands of years before Columbus. The ruins of their buildings have been found but are protected from public inspection. Rock structures containing hundreds of large rocks with Egyptian hiroglyphs (?) are still evident on the remanants of the structures. The temple lakes still can be seen and the structures that look like Stone Henge.

I suppose we will be given exact locations when they feel they can keep the curious out. We shall see.

The possibilities as to how many peoples came to our shores before Columbus did are many. This only needs a passing reference in history texts until further information is proved beyond any doubt. It is unlikely we will know about every group that came, ever. In the meanwhile, we should leave it to the anthropologists and such to work on shedding light on the question.

When I was in the 7th grade, our science books told us the atom was the smallest particle of matter that could not be split. Well, that was truth as we knew it at that time. Now it would be called a lie.

Certainly Columbus was not the first here, but just as certainly his voyages were the most recorded and published AT THE TIME THEY HAPPENED, and Europeans began sending explorers, treasure seekers, and settlers over only after word of what was here got out as a result of his coming.

Whether we think private sexual liaisons should be public or not, our country's reactions (and the world's) to the Clinton fiasco has to be part of the political texts because he was impeached. The subjective analysis of why this happened will probably evolve as time goes on, but it is now an important part of history how the American (U.S.) people reacted and how the legislature reacted. That the legislature seemed to be acting without regard to public opinion will probably be studied for a long time.

In thinking about present day experiences, and if they have a place in "history," I would guess hindsight will always have a place in history texts. So much of history is developed/recorded through a social lens---what we are valuing at the moment---so hindsight will let us test those values. Today we value contributions by women and various groups of people whose lives we ignored for too long. Maybe history is dynamic, in that we keep questioning what is important to record.

I think you are right Betty.

)

The heroification process which Loewen describes does tend to conceal information not in keeping with the character we thought we knew. In the case of Wilson, even if the L of N was not his idea, it's what we all associate him with. That he would have had a racist bone in his body came as a shock--but also one that explains a lot about how things were in the '40's and '50's in a major city. I didn't find much to be shocked about in the Columbus chapter. In fact, Loewen's treatment is a little tepid compared to feed-back I used to get from my daughter when she was in college. Lately, however, I had occasion to ask her if she had ever heard of the first Thanksgiving as I had described it to her from Loewen, and she said she had not. Moreover, she said that if anyone on her campus had said anything like that it would have been all over campus by the weekend. The two ideas I would like to nail down are, first, that the Mayflower sought Plymouth as a known destination and, second, that the sources at the time actually discuss the "wonderful plague among the salvages (sic)." I'm still combing through Loewen's notes to try to find some of his references. As to the silly flat earth myth, it was exploded no later than the publication of Morison's "Admiral of the Ocean Sea," still a good read for those curious about the technology. The whole debate imputed to Columbus and the Doctors of Toledo was a construct by Washington Irving in the 19th century. What is surprising is that some contemporary texts try to let it live by default pp.46-47.

I think it would be very difficult to keep President Clinton's sexcapades out of history books, even on the high school level. If this were done, the whole issue of the impeachment by the House and the trial in the Senate would have to be left out. This would amount to the censoring of an event that occupied the interest of the nation for over a year. Who is to pick and choose the events to be censored?

Idris, the rocks you wrote about bring to mind the information that Loewen supplied about the huge, 9ft. rocks archaeologists found in southeastern Mexico with "distinctly Negroid faces." Could this affirm the theory that Afro-Phoenicians were here long before Columbus?

And what about the Vikings? (Not the football team, no) Loewen says that very few of the textbooks he read go into detail about the possibility of the Norse expeditions. These daring sailors reached America in a series of voyages across the Atlantic, establishing communities on the Faero Islands, Iceland, and Greenland. And from Greenland a series of expeditions reached various parts of North America, including Labrador, Newfoundland, and possibly even New England.

Some archaeologists and historians believe that the Norse got as far down the coast as North Carolina. and these discoveries were known in Europe for centuries.

Because the Vikings voyages had little lasting effect on the fate of the world, should textbooks therefore leave them out? How much do we hear about Leif Erickson, or his forebears?

When I was in school, even considering the thouht that someone else might have beaten Columbus to our shores was considered almost heresy.

LORRIE

As I read the posts here, I am beginning to realize that we are talking about censorship in some form as mild as it may be. As Harold asks: "Who is to pick and choose the events to be censored?" The term "lies" implies that the original fact was modified or that a different "fact" was inserted. Censoring means preventing information from going before the public.

Were these "lies" our teachers told us purposely created way back there or did they "just happen?"

Robby

Loewen's book raises some interesting questions about teaching history, or for that matter teaching almost any subject matter in our current educational system.

Several posters have pointed out the role text books have played in their education concerning American history and the role other media have played as well.

Nobody has mentioned the internet except for one remark about computer literacy being an oxymoron, a remark ironically made transmissible by the very medium it disparages.

I wonder if Loewen's concentration on text books isn't an anachronism and while not obsolete, the traditional text will become transformed in the future as more and more "content" of various subject matters goes online or on CD or other electronic storage media.

As I see it the task of the teacher in the future is to make students not narrowly "computer literate" but "information explosion" literate, that is the skill to discover and evaluate information that is increasingly at their finger tips.

Some of Loewen's ideas about teaching fit into this future and need to be implemented.

One is the need to have more and more primary sources available. Text books don't have room for them as they are already too big; but the internet does, and more and more primary sources need to be made accessible to students. Many already are.

Take an example from the book, the concern Loewen has about books omitting facts about Helen Keller's life. In the not too distant future it may be possible for a student to read some of the things, Keller wrote-, to compare the script for the Broadway production of the play about Anne Suillivan and Keller with the movie script- to see the movie, to read excerpts from Loewen about Keller, to communicate on the internet with peers who have experienced some of Keller's physical problems, and much more.

I think new technology (along with the old) has the potential to supply learners with far more than texts could- and,of course, the potential to tell more and more lies, and then Loewen can write a book about "Lies my Computer Told me."

Henry,

Your daughter may have been involved in the 1992 enthusiasm on various campuses and other places where it was fashionable to bash and debunk Columbus as part of the 500th anniversary of the "discovery".

Several of the young Native Americvan intellectuals wrote books that ridiculed Columbus (one novel that I recall) and others played the reverse card- writing about an Indian discovery of Eurpoe with sharp satire about the "savages" they discovered living there. and the sorry state of "civilzation" that existed there.

One event that I became only peripherally involved in was a symbolic trial (held in Minneapolis) of Columbus for genocide and other crimes against humanity. People really got caught up in it and took it seriously and those "witnesses" who testified for Columbus even if only role playing were harassed and several just quit rather than go through with it.

The Minnesota state Sierra Club was involved in it as one of the jurors was the state president. I complained that the club had no business messing around with that particular issue. I was part of the Wisconsin chapter at the time and concerned with the club's public image.

As I recall he was found guilty. And the Sierra Club went on to work on more pressing environmental issues including an alleged "nukicide" of a local tribe by a power plant storing nuclear waste next to tribal lands.

I recall being concerned at the time as the tribe wiped out a nearby wetland to build a casino.

Lorrie in message #162 writes:

Because the Vikings voyages had little lasting effect on the fate of the world, should textbooks therefore leave them out? How much do we hear about Leif Erickson, or his forebears?

No the vikings and other pre Columbus voyages should not be left out, but as Lorrie points out they had "little lasting effect" so far as our present culture is concern. In contrast it was the Columbus voyage that opened the Americas having immense revolutionary effect on our present culture (good and bad). That is why it receives the principal coverage in high schooltext books today.

Harold:

What a great philosophy of life!

It's not where you go and when but what you do when you get there.

Robby

Hey Robby:

It's not where you go and when but what you do when you get there.

As a modern world reality, as a practical mater, the statement sure seems to apply.

I'm signing off for the afternoon at the National Historic Park.

Harold

How and why the District of Columbia and Columbia University got their name; also a good explanation of "why" we created the myth of Columbus in American history. I think you'll enjoy this clickable"

Columbus

One of the authors Loewen quotes several times is Michael Dorris, a failed or flawed hero figure himself in some ways, who along with Louise Erdrich wrote The Crown of Columbus, a novel that will not survive as a classic of American Indian Literature, although I think his Yellow raft in the Blue Water will as will Louise Erdich's The Beet Queen.

I wonder what Loewen thinks now about his flawed intellectual hero, Dorris, whose life and suicide is an example of a modern American Tragedy.

Jim, it's only recently that the news burst forth here in the Twin Cities about Michael Dorris, but there is one thing I've noticed. After the first few days of conjecture reporting and hints about the charges that were about to be made by his estranged wife Louise Erdich, it seemed to me there was a lessening of interest by the media, at least locally. I could be wrong, but the newspaper coverage of this man's tragic life and then death was not as bad as he himself, for example, had feared.

I didn't read Yellow Raft inthe Blue Water, but I will. From the little I could get from a review, it's a good book. One that you might enjoy, Betty! The story of three generations of Native American women, and the emotional terrain of lives led wihout the ongoing presence of fathers or husbands.

Yes, while writing in great detail about "flawed" textbooks being used to teach American history, it's ironic that one of the author's prime sources of facts is "flawed" himself!

Lorrie

I've read Yellow Raft and agree with its importance. In fact, it was an assigned book in a class on multi-cultural issues.

Dorris committed suicide? I know nothing about any of the pieces of the tragic story in the last 2 posts. What happened? What a loss.

About Michael Dorris:
A Broken Life

Jim, I really enjoy and appreciate my computer as a medium. However, if someone would continue to supply a good typewriter and its equipment, I'd never use the computer for serious writing. Now that the market has been destroyed by the computer, ribbons, typewriters, and all the stuff we used to keep them alive are extinct. If I were emperor, they would not be. As to Michael Dorris, I hadn't written down his reference owing to the presence of so many other references. I think Dorris' point stands as Loewen reports it on p. 86, irrespective of any catalogue of character faults that can be assembled. It was the Pilgrims who had not previously seen pumpkins, turkey, corn and squash. One title I hope to run down shortly is Kupperman's "Settling with the Indians," which at least seems to have the scenario correct. There are many others in Loewen's endnotes. My own take on our textbooks is that they are not quite as flaw riddled as Loewen here claims. In the early '70's, I came across a discussion of Polk's famous claim (or, more properly, lie), that in 1846 (thereabouts)Mexican forces had invaded the U.S. Lincoln, as a young senator, tried unsuccessfully to oppose Polk on this point. I doubt seriously that any other country would allow such an admission in a high school text book (regrettably, I don't recall the title). Even John D. Hicks' old warhorse from the '50's admits Polk lied, but doesn't mention Lincoln. But if his account of Plymouth is even half right, Loewen surely has hit an exposed nerve.

Hi, everybody! I've been off-line for a few days, and came back to discover 75 new posts. And all of them raise so many great points and issues to discuss. I'm always impressed by what fast company I travel in in these discussions. If anyone is still waiting for a book, I (strangely enough) have an extra copy the used book store wouldn't take. So, if you want it, let me know and I'll send it to you.

I'll try to address various points in some kind of coherent order.

First, why do kids hate U.S. history? Loewen asserts that, and I can tell you anecdotally that it is true. Eighth graders don't hate it as much as high school kids. Part of it is the teachers they've had; one student told me her middle-school history teacher had put up overheads of notes for the students to copy, while he read the newspaper. One of my colleagues in a school had been kicked out of the science department and sent to the history department because he had proved to be incompetent. I myself was taught U.S. history and American literature by the same person, who on some days gave the exact same lecture in both classes. I was pretty meek in those days, but I considered getting up and running about the classroom uncontrollably just to make it more interesting. Kids also tend to think that history is a list of facts and dates and dull, dull, dull. Most of them define it as "what happened in the past." They don't really understand that a great deal of what they get in class is interpretation as well as fact (i.e., what happened and what it means).

As for teaching about contemporary events--the U.S. history curriculum in most districts is spelled out week by week (not that many teachers necessarily follow it). There is a great deal of information to get through. With my high school classes, I generally get through to the Nixon administration. U.S. government, which they take as seniors, picks up with Nixon and the Watergate trials. At least, it does the way I teach it. It is true that we aren't supposed to teach the kids to any particular ideology, but as I've told my students no one could sit in my class and not tell what my political leanings are (I am--I'm not afraid to say it--an old-time liberal).

Ella--I'm with you on what Loewen would suggest taking out. The truth is that textbook publishers are pretty market-driven. If a book is not put on the list of approved textbooks for California and Texas, then it is not published. There are far fewer textbook companies now than there were when Loewen was writing. Websites for some of them: Prentice Hall, http://www.phschool.com

Glencoe, http://www.glencoe.com (this page took a while to load; for U.S. history books, http://www.glencoe.com/sec/socialstudies/ushistory/index.html

Holt, Rhinehart and Winston, http://hrw.com/social/ (published the excellent The American Nation)

McDougal Littell, http://mcdougallittell.com or www.classzone.com (published the be-all-and-end-all U.S. history book, The Americans, about which I absolutely can't say enough good things.)

On the Clinton scandal, and the debate on sex in history, it's true that you can't keep sex out of class (sometimes I wondered if they were having sex in the back of the room!). I didn't discuss the Clinton scandal with my eighth graders because, as I told them, they were not interested in the parts of it we could discuss in the classroom. On the other hand, I DID discuss it with my seniors, who were 1) far more sophisticated than I was at 17 and 2) interested in the political repercussions.

Loewen is absolutely right about how the textbooks treat Columbus. I have a stack of books from about 1998. Most of them don't spend so much time on Columbus anymore; all of them introduce the concept of the Columbian exchange, a meeting of Native American, European, and African cultures; but still, none of them hold Columbus directly responsible for maltreatment of the native population. As to whether he knew he had not reached Asia, I offer these statements: "The daring sea captain went to his grave disappointed that he had not reached China" (The Americans); "Columbus himself never realized exactly what he had begun. Even after Isabella financed him for three more trips to the Caribbean, in 1493, 1498, and 1502, he refused to admit that he had encountered an entirely new continent. Through the end of his life, Columbus was sure that he had reached 'the Indies,' islands off the southeast coast of Asia" (Prentice Hall's America: Pathways to the Present); "Yet Columbus himself died without realizing he had encountered a continent" (Holt, Rhinehart's The American Nation); "Columbus originally thought the lands he had found were in Asia. Later explorations made it clear that Columbus had not reached Asia at all" (Glencoe's The American Journey). However, all of the high-school books offer several explanations of Columbus' significance. They all lay the story out the same way, too, beginning with a section on Native American culture, a section on European culture, a section on African culture, and then a section on the meeting of these three. None of the books mentions that the Spaniards took back syphilis along with slaves, tomato, corn, and potatoes.

My own general theory of teaching history is that it is about evaluating sources and teaching the kids how to sort out good or useful information. To that end, I assign lots of papers (problematic, as special ed kids can't do them and about a quarter of the others won't) and sometimes do some internet searching and evaluate sources in class (again problematic; I'm supposed to spend a certain amount of time teaching to whatever standardized test the kids are taking this year, which WON'T include useful information like this but will include a spelling section). High-school level books now weigh 5 to 6 pounds, and students have trouble lugging them around, much less reading them. Consequently, many of the new books are formatted like "People" magazine.

But I digress. Sorry about the long post--I'll try to keep up better in the future.

Thanks, Mal, great article. How terribly sad. I was completely unaware. It must have been enormous pressure on him to be symbol to the Native American community of what was possible---as the article points out.

Interesting how many recent lessons offered on the human state of our heros.

EllenM: A most interesting post... about what you are teaching now...

I have a grandson(senior...H.S.) who likes to read history, but is barely passing American History(required in IL). He claims it is so dull. The teacher is also football coach. It seems in our school district the social studies are taught by coaches who have little time for class preparation.

So there is no real interest locally in what is in the textbooks. The concern seems to be centered on getting through some of the material that will appear on the ACT and SAT tests, and the State Achievement tests.

Ellen M.: What a generous offer! I'm sure one of our "lurkers" will take advantage of it, and ask for your extra copy.

Your post was really interesting, as was what Pat W. wrote about her grandson. It's so typical, isn't it?

Which makes me wonder. I know there are many teachers, present and former, joining in this discussion, but I'm curious as to how many of us were or are involved in the educational process. Let's hear from you, take a count! Were or are any of you involved in the much-maligned, unappreciated profession of teaching or administrative work in the education field?

Lorrie

Lorrie, I taught high school eons ago. That was before business and before psychology.

THANK YOU ELLEN!

This is absolutely wonderful to have a young teacher in our midst - I have many questions if you have the time to answer them. It is apparent that you (and some of our posters) believe teachers in part are the reason that a) students dislike history as the teachers are boring, and b)preconceptions of students that history is all facts to be learned, again, the teachers' fault.

Why is this? Are our colleges failing in their endeavors to instruct future teachers how to make history interesting? Do they not think it an important subject? Why are principals allowing such teachers as you and others have portrayed in the classrooms?

Our presidential candidates this year are constantly verbalizing the words "make them accountable." Shouldn't we make history teachers accountable? How?

Also, Ellen, can you use any history textbook you like? You stated that the AMERICANS is the best - why?

Also you mentioned the problem of special ed kids who cannot do the homework or the papers you assign. That is understandable and I'm sure you can handle that in some way; however, when you said "others won't" - can you tell us what you mean? Are you saying you give an assignment and get no work at all from the students? Do you flunk them out of class? What form of punishment can you use? Certainly students must not be allowed to dictate what homework they will and won't do!!! Is this what our schools are coming to - the students dictate???

One final question - in what way do you use this book in your class?

I apologize for all my questions, but I have no grandchildren and feel this lack deeply as I am interested in our schools and the future of our children. And I hear and read the comments on the plight of our schools and, of course, as I said earlier I had a wonderful teacher of history in high school. I wish all students could have been in my class and could take what they learn into their future lives.

In the book, "Past Imperfect," the authors point out that Hollywood, too, has also played lightly with historical facts. In movies about Columbus, for instance, choronology is expanded, compressed, reversed, even falsified to suit the dramatic trajectory. Personages from history are revised, deified, or demonized to serve the director's will.

Before reading "Lies" I happened to watch "1492--The Conquest of Paradise," on the Bravo channel on TV, and, as in history classes, I assumed the characters depicted were true to life. I did think that Gerard Depardiieu's French accent was awkward, even laughable.

Did anyone else see this film?

Lorrie

Where is everyone? What has happened to all our history buffs?

Now that Thanksgiving is almost upon us, does no one want to comment on what really happened on the first Thanksgiving Day?

Lorrie

Gosh...hope I didn't kill the discussion...

I guess I didn't mean to put all the blame on bad teachers, but looking back at my post, I did. I don't really know why the kids hate history, but they do. At the high school level, they need the U.S. history credit to graduate. At the same time, teachers aren't allowed to fail "too many" students (out of 110, 7 was too many, but 2 were okay--I crunched the numbers to make it work). And I guess the truth is that quite a few students despise English class, too.

I have taught students who were completely unprepared for my class. I consider it to be both a possibly terminal U.S. history class (I just love that term--it means last U.S. history class a student will take) as well as a college prep course (about 80% of all students eventually will go on for post-high school education). The second year I taught I had a senior who couldn't read. Unbelievably, he had passed English twice, a math class, a science class, U.S. history, and wood shop. (He only had about 8 or 9 credits but was still considered a senior.) In any case, he absolutely did not know how to read. I referred him for special education services, which he began receiving in March of his senior year. In any case, I do rely (perhaps too much) on traditional lecture style which they will be getting in college. I had more whining about "When are we going to do something fun?" and "You're going too fast for me to keep up!" than I thought possible.

Anyway, some kids do refuse to do the work. I am expected to keep lists of what make-up work they need to do, even if they are not going to do it. This has been true in three different districts. And I'm not allowed to put them out of class because I have to be supervising them at all times.

As for colleges--at the time I took my undergraduate degree I didn't know I would end up being a teacher. I loved history in college; it was something of a revelation how much (although I had a fantastic world history teacher in high school). I got my teaching degree when I got my master's degree in education. There were many suggestions of how to make it more interesting, everything from having the students write more to having debates in class. Sometimes, though, the sheer number of ideas is overwhelming.

History classes are textbook-driven; they have to be. The textbook is often the only free resource (even I can't believe how much I spend on paper and copies). The reason I like The Americans so much is that each chapter contains quotations from primary sources. It is a huge book--over 1100 pages--almost an encyclopedia--but it has a very concise style and contains great maps and also social history. I tend to teach from an economic history viewpoint--"this happened because this group had something to gain"--so I find that The Americans helps me focus on what is important (not necessarily the money).

In general, a district adopts a new textbook for all the schools within the district to use for about 6 years. So, the teacher can use whatever textbook she wants, but the kids all have to use whatever the district chose. My eighth grade class had 32 books to share among 60 kids, so I couldn't issue them to individual kids and I couldn't assign any history homework that wasn't entirely self-contained.

Well, I didn't mean to ramble on so, but I hope I answered your questions, Ella. I'll try to think about the First Thanksgiving tomorrow and post a few thoughts.

Elen:--I wish that thousands of people could read your comments. So true! I think we are not talking about students. We are not even talking about schools. We are talking about society (teachers and parents and expectations.) Most of us are acquainted with the street phrase: "Put up or shut up." Do your job or get fired. Follow the law or get arrested. Clean up your room or lose your privileges. Do your school work or fail.

I have earlier in my years done a fair amount of substitute teaching and I also handled public relations for a school district for three years where I mingled daily with both teachers and students. I know a bit about expectations. To oversimplify, these days we don't expect much. That is why many children talk back to their parents. That is why we can drive 65mph in 55mph zones and drive with impunity. That is why "social promotion" came into existence. That is why we put less-than-capable people into public office. Who cares? What's the difference? So what?

As Ellen indicated, it was not only a case of not liking History. Many didn't like English classes either. Math? Ugh!! Phys Ed? It is my understanding that there is only one state left in the Union that mandates physical education (what in my youth they called gym). Look around you at the number of fat children.

What, then, do most children want (if they want anything)? They want to have money. Not to "make" money -- to "have" money. It's immediate gratification time, folks!!

Robby

P.S. See you at McDonalds.

Ellen, what a thoughtful post on presen-day teaching, and wht your thoughts are one it. I once had an American History teacher who rarely used the text-book, except for those unrelenting dates, but he would take a vignette from history and practically re-enact it in front of the class. He made certain parts of history come vibrantly alive--his dramatic approach to the beginning of the Civil War was a spell-binding performance. I swear that man was a thwarted actor. As a resul, I have vivid recollections of spots of history. The upshot was a rather sporadic but nonetheless memorable approach to American History. But it was never dull.

Oh, Robby, I couldn't agree more! I hate to be one of these old creatures who sits around lamenting "what's become of our young 'uns?" but it does seem their whole sense of priorities or values, even, seems twisted around somehow. Or are we still clinging to ideas and virtues that are irrlevant, and outdated?

Lorrie

I'm still trying to get my Dell desktop working again, but after reformatting the hard drive it refuses to install windows. To paraphrase an old rhyme

All the Dell gurus and all the Dell men Can't seem to get it together again

They now suspect the memory strip and are sending a new one.

Now regarding our discussion. I too appreciate having a real high school class room teacher as a participant. Thank you Ellen M and please continue incorporating your class experience in your posts.

My principal contact with school age children has been in connection with my volunteer museum work. At the Institute of Texan Cultures and the S.A. Missions National Historic Park my work has principally been with adults or mixed groups. At the S.A. Museum of Art my work centered on school groups. One of my specialties was the Spanish Colonial gallery where I used historical interpretation to explain the different pieces. The subject began with the discovery of America and I would ask questions like who discovered America and in what year did it occur. Quite often some one in a middle school class would answer, Columbus, but hardly ever would anyone state the date correctly. There was never a shortage of answers almost always a later date than 1492. Once after one of the middle school class answered 1932 as the year of the discovery, a teacher mumbled in apology, "We don't put much stress on dates in our history classes." I can not understand how anyone could understand history with out reference to dates that are necessary to put events in a proper chronology.

In the American Pictorial gallery the museum hung a portrait of Andrew Jackson that was painted by an artist name Samuel B. Morse. As 19th century portraits go, this painting is considered second rate and as an artist this painter never achieved a higher status. Samuel B. Morse of course is remembered for his great achievement in another field. He was the inventor of the telegraph. Yet not once did anyone answer my question, for what was Samuel B. Morse famous? From 3rd grade on I am confident that every one in my class could have answered the question.

Wasn't Morse famous for conquering the Spaniards?

Robby

I think our current discussion re the state of education at present does indicate the need for some national standards in various subjects as turning everything back to the local politicians and even worse to a fragmented group of schools with vouchers can only result in many American Histories being taught with a wide variety of "lies" of various kinds. And even many versions of "science" as the Kansas state school board decisions have indicated. Shades of the old Soviet Union and "Lysenko" science- anyone remember that?

As one concerned with teaching literature I was always torn between having a curriculum dominated by classics to give us some sense of cultural cohesiveness- some common cultural background- and meeting individual interests in reading.

I always ended up doing a little bit of each and hoping in the process to teach kids how to be critical readers.

I think history teachers face the same issues- what set of common historical heritage to give kids ansd still be consistent with our muti-cultural heritage. It isn't easy.

Thanksgiving is an example (see I can get back to the topic).

Several years ago one of my friends was the editor of a national Native American newspaper "News from Indian Country."

He was aware of these issues (and of the "lies" Loewen points out) but he also believed in some kind of national unity based on all groups sharing some cultural icons.

His big gripe was the Thanksgiving was the chief icon used to demostrate this unity and as Loewen shows it is an essentially false one.

But it is deeply embedded in our cultural image iof ourselves and can't easily be changed.

He used to hate it when civic groups and the state public radio would alsways choose Thanksgiving as the one time during the year when they would interview him and try to get a tribal perspective.

He would complain "This is the only time they will listen to me and they expect me to repeat a all the myths . Well he didn't do that , but it was the only time he could get heard for any of his concerns.

As you might expect Thanksgiving is not a particular time of celebration in the tribal communiies in the state. There are no Thanksgiving pow wows- closest unifying pow wow comes in July near Indepencece day as an "Honor the Earth" Pow Wow.

Actually a unifying force in these is a sense of patriotism as veterans are always given a place of honor in the Pow Wow.

Maybe Earth Day is the date we should set aside for examining our common bonds. That doesn't work very well for inner cities (where a large part of our Indian population lives)

Good grief! Whatever happened to: "In fourteen hundred and ninety-two, Columbus sailed the ocean blue!"?

I can REMEMBER being in 3rd grade and drawing and coloring Santa Maria ships, which the teacher (Mrs. Fritz, at West Point, N.Y.) put up around the top of the blackboards like a border. I mean, we were not BIG into history in the 3rd grade, but we could have answered Harold's questions! What gives?

Have we become fragmented, as Jim seems to suggest, in every local school board's ideology of what we should think and know? Do we need a serious national summit meeting of public school history teachers with college history professors? Perhaps allowing both the national press and the textbook writers in the galleries to just listen in?

Jim, I was interested by your mention of your newspaper editor friend.

"This is the only time they will listen to me and they expect me to repeat all the myths" There is something so poignant, so sadabout that sentence. We can hardly blame him for feeling that way after reading Loewen's research into how the "Settlers" really treated the Indians. Apparently they were a strong, healthy group of people who had absolutley no immunity to protect them from the deadly diseases the "discoverers" brought to them.

Lorrie

MaryPage, you've hit upon a point that I certainly agree with. I see no need to demythologize education for younger children. Certainly by any level of high school, and probably well before that, we need to be telling something closer to the truth, as best we can determine. Jim, if your Native American friend had seen p. 73 of Karen Kupperman's 1980 book, he could have claimed that the Indians originated Thanksgiving. I tend to agree with one of Loewen's secondary sources whose title implies that Thanksgiving stole the Pilgrims. But there are some problems. The plague works; we'll never know the exact figures, but expert consensus is too strong on this point. How the plague figures in why the Mayflower went to Cape Cod is not so easily resolved. Squanto's biographers sometimes complain of a paucity of evidence, so it seems hazardous just to accept at face value what one of them thinks the king of England said about the plague. We can prove the plague from other sources. The weather story is a likely coverup for something. It could be Merchant Venturers' greed; it could be a Dutch bribe; it could even be the Pilgrims' desire to avoid the C of E in Virginia. Looks like it's been the course of least resistance to fall back on the weather. Whatever account we would use today must note the fact that the Indians had already settled and tilled the area, because that's the part of the story that (for me) flew squarely in the face of what I thought I knew about it. One more brief point: what a remarkable academic superstar Loewen has us stumble across in Karen Kupperman. University libraries from Knoxville to Raleigh tend to show her 1980 book checked out. One is out until 6/01. Can you spell faculty library privilege? On top of that, she has a new book that just hit the streets this year. She says in her introduction (1980) that one of her colleagues had "agreed to disagree" with some of her views. Wonder if he still does.

Jim from Message #188

I think our current discussion re the state of education at present does indicate the need for some national standards in various subjects as turning everything back to the local politicians and even worse to a fragmented group of schools with vouchers can only result in many American Histories being taught with a wide variety of "lies" of various kinds

As a unifying stratagem national educational standards might seem desirable, but why should a nationally imposed curriculum have any better results than the local ones? And how would you distinguish the prescribed "national standards" from federal regulation and control of thought? Perhaps our goal should be results measured by tests. I doubt that a proposal to end local control of schools and what they teach would be received favorably through most of this nation

I wasn't suggesting a national system of education as they have in many other countries- just some way of having some national shared culture.

Textbooks tend to serve this purpose, however bad they are, and in spite of Loewn's claims I am encouraged by the positive trends he finds in many of them.

The testing route creates a defacto national curriculum that is controlled by the test makers .

As a person who has worked on creating reading tests and norming them, I know just how subjective they can be and the dangers involved in going that route.

This is wonderful! Getting these points of view from people who are or were actually involved in the education process! Straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

In looking over some of Loewen's other sources I was interested in the background of one publication that he cites frequently, Ivan van Sertima's "They Came Before Columbus," which, among other things, notes various historical episodes which may indicate trade between African and American peoples early on.

Loewen omits the tepid reviews that van Sertima's book received when it was published, and van Sertima's own possible bias. Loewen fails to mention van Sertima's political and idealogical affiliation----his works are widely cited by militant African-American groups, particularly the Nation of Islam. Wouldn't that lead you to believe that van Sertima is arguing from a highly subjective position?

Comments, anyone?

I would agree that Lowen doesn't seem to distinguish between his sources or qualify them in any way.

As Henry pointed our earlier some of them are notable scholars in their area and others as Lorrie notes are quite suspect.

This is one of the main problems with our academic system (and certainly our political system) of discourse- we all too often tend to search for sources that support a position we have taken rather than for sources that can direct us to the truth through a process of "sifting and winnowing."

Yes, Jim, some of the authors whom Loewen quotes extensively seem to be arguing from a highly subjective position, maybe with a specific political or cultural agenda that would brook no other conclusion but theirs. Which leads me to believe that, in using that evidence without giving it context, Loewen is manipulating us in much the same way that he accuses textbooks of manipulating students.

Well, hey! Let's look at all sides!

Lorrie

As I've said before, some of the candor one finds in secondary school texts is surprising. It just needs to expand to cover some points that haven't been accepted before. I'm not sure exactly how the Pilgrims' theft of foodstuffs and goods from settled Indians' caches and graves should be handled. They often indicate a willingness to pay back the proper owners several fold of what they took if they could just find them. But I'm convinced it should be mentioned. Any attempt to explain the origins of Thanksgiving should make clear that it is much later than the events described, together with the use of the word "pilgrim," which also came later. The testimony of settlers from 1590 to 1635 of having witnessed a similar ceremony among the Indians at harvest time belongs in the mainstream as well (see Kupperman, Settling...p.73.) On Columbus, his remains the "discovery" so far as most Europeans were concerned. I cannot accept as sham or construct his earnest efforts to explain to his financial backers why what he proposed could be done. As for the settled Americans whose lives he ruined in the course thereof, I would have had to do what I thought necessary to persuade the Royals of Spain that I had done precisely what I set out to do. They don't come across as "understanding" in their other historical connections. With John Stossel (hope you saw the show the other night), I have to say, "Give me a break!" Finally, both the biases attributed to Wilson receive treatment in my old college American history nightmare by John D. Hicks. He even has a scene from Birth of a Nation in an illustration, but Wilson's apparent acceptance of its message is never mentioned. I think people are now ready to accept the idea that a hero can have a less acceptable side to his character. It falls within what any citizen needs to know.

I'm in agreement on Loewen's uncritical treatment of his sources. I've been looking for a book I own by Arthur M. Schlesinger, The Disuniting of America (grump. I know it's here somewhere!) Anyway, Schlesinger's book came out in about 1992 and makes a case against multiculturalism. In some respects, I agree with him: a lot of people now refer to their non-white students as the "multicultural" ones. This drives me berserk, as multicultural is supposed to mean that all students, even the ones that look alike, come from different cultural backgrounds. This includes the white ones.

In any case, Schlesinger discusses someone's work about Afro-Phoenicians. He talks about how shaky the evidence is, and says we should not teach an early African voyage to the Americas as fact. I can't remember what points he made about cultural pluralism (dang it, I've got to find that book).

I also noticed that many of the books Loewen used were older than would have been used in a classroom at the time he was writing. I wonder if there were changes in the books so that they didn't make the points he wanted from them.

Even though I was an American history major, the cultivated fields came as a surprise to me, too. I suppose I had thought that the Pilgrims settled in sparsely-populated areas (which of course they did, once the native population had been hit by disease). I suspect even if this was in a textbook, my eyes went right past it since it didn't fit with what I already "knew" to be true, or I never read the book.

I read Chapter 3 on the Thanksgiving subject with particular interest when I learned from Loewen that Squanto may have been taken to England prior to the 1620 arrival of the Plymouth colonists. Another Native American who figured in the history of Jamestown had a similar history. This Indian named Opechancanough was born the son of a chief about 1544. In 1561, when he was about 16, two Spanish ships commanded by Pedro Menendez de Aviles entered Chesapeake bay. The Spanish leader proposed taking the boy back to Europe promising to return him in a few years. The boy's father consented.

This account is taken from a Book, "Jamestown, 1544 -1699" by Carl Bridenbaugh, 1980. I read this book about 1994 and while I am using it now to check dates and spelling, most of the sketch is from my memory. In Spain, Opechancanough was placed in the care of the Jesuits and was a favorite in the Spanish court. He became a Catholic Christian. When Aviles raised the question of the return as he had promised the Jesuits were strongly opposed. He would revert to paganism if returned to his people. Aviles persisted citing his promise to the father. Finally he obtained a royal order for the return. As I remember the sequence of events he took Opechancanough to Mexico where he was again placed in the hands of the Jesuits who again insisted that he not be returned to Virginia. Several more years passed before the persistent Aviles was allowed to return the boy. As I remember it, there was a compromise involving the company of several Jesuit Priests who were to assure the continuation of his Christian faith.

Back in Virginia after a decade of absence Opechancanough found his brother had succeeded his father as chief, however, he quickly reestablished himself to a position of influence in his tribe. On the other hand the Jesuits made little impression on the Indians. Essentially they were a mission but without supplies or the means of contact with Mexico. In a short time Opechancanough as had been predicted reverted more and more to the ways of his people. The Indians killed the Jesuits in 1571 after which Opechancanough fast forgetting his European experience remained a tribal leader.

In 1607 when the English settlers arrived Opechancanough was about 63 years old. The English found the Indians around their Jamestown colony were sometimes interested in trade but the English like most Europeans were often less than honorable in their dealings. The result was often open warfare. Apparently the English at Jamestown were in considerably more danger from their Indian neighbors than the Pilgrims at Plymouth. The problem continued until the middle of the 17th century. During one of these altercations in 1644 after a price was put on Opechancanough's head., he was taken prisoner and shot in the back by an English soldier as he was being let along a street at Jamestown. At the time of his death he was about 100 years old.

The following is an Interesting Jamestown site:

http://www.apva.org/

Hey, folks, for the next 3 chapters, I'll be your Discussion Leader as each of us listed in the heading are taking portions of the book and I certainly hope we will continue the good exploration that Lorrie began.

As we read these chapters let's consider the 3 premises I have placed in the heading and try to determine the truth of each. We can start by discussing the following paragraph on pg 102 in the 4TH chapter entitled "RED EYES."

"For a long time Native Americans have been rebuking textbook authors for reserving the adjective civilized for European cultures. In 1927 an organization of Native leaders called the Grand Council Fire of American Indians criticized textbooks as 'unjust to the life of our people.' They went on to ask, 'What is civilization? Its marks are a noble religion and philosophy, original arts, stirring music, rich story and legend. We had these. Then we were not savages, but a civilized race."

Throughout this book, the author commands teachers to relate the past to the present in teaching history, to make it relevant to the students - a very good discussion of the word "civilization" might start with the following paragraph of this book on page 103:

In 1990 President Bush condemned Iraq's invasion of Kuwait with the words, "The entire civilized world is against Iraq" - an irony in that Iraq's Tigris and Euphrates valleys are the earliest known seat of civilization.

What do we mean by civilization? Were the Indians civilized? What were you taught? What are the textbooks of today teaching about Native Americans?

Do children still play cowboys and Indians? Which are the bad guys? Have you ever referred to children playing rough as "a bunch of wild Indians?" Used the expression "Indian giver?"

Of course the Indians were civilized. There are thousands of kinds of civilizations -- each different from the other. There are some societies in the world who consider our Western customs (religion, sexual attitudes, etc.) as primitive.

Robby

Ellen, I've been out of town for the last few days, but did want to say thanks for answering many of my questions concerning students and teaching methods. Am still amazed at some of your answers and would love to explore those at more length; however, as they don't necessarily pertain to the book perhaps I should concentrate on the next three chapters of this book.

Harold, that's a fascinating story, thanks for sharing it.

That's too simple an answer, Robby. What is meant by "civilized" and likewise "uncivilized?"

Well, I could look it up in the dictionary but I don't think that's what you want. To me, civilized means considering the other being (not just human being) as well as yourself. Recognizing that we are all part of life. Being able to associate and cooperate with others. Progressing and evolving.

Robby

Then you believe that Iraq was uncivilized as they were being uncooperative?

Ella:--Yes, they are acting in an uncivilized manner in many ways and so are we.

Robby

Ella and others Regarding the European use of uncomplenentary words like, "uncivilized" to describe Native American cultures.

I am inclind to agree with Robby's comment in message #206: "Yes, they are acting in an uncivilized manner in many ways and so are we." I have been reading in English translation a number of the French and Spanish Journals coming out of the La Salle exploration in 16th century French Canada, his discovery and exploration of the Mississippi River, and his tragic colony and end in Texas. These include several journals by French survivors, including the Henri Joutel (a surviving La Salle Lieutenant) and Spanish journals and legal documents concerning the La Salle colony. Also I read the Fransis Parkman classic, "La Salle and the Discovery of the Great West".

These Documents relate many acts of incivility on the part of both races. As to the Indians of the Mississippi valley, there are many accounts of Indian savagery toward other Indians including acts that modern reporters would describe as genocide. Also many of these tribes practiced regular ceremonial cannibalism and there is evidence that some carried it into the area of subsistence. As to the French they partook of human ribs found on the body of an Indian killed in a skirmish on the lower river with the comment that they knew it was human because it tasted better than the alligator they were accustomed to at that time. The above comment is a paraphrase and therefore I did not use quotation marks.

Many European writers use the word that translates into English as "savage" to describe the native people. This to me implies that they just simply did not know better. They just did what came naturally. I think a modern writer writing of modern events would call the perpetrators "terrorists" implying they knew (or should have known) better. This leads me to Robby's conclusion, "Yes, they are acting in an uncivilized manner in many ways and so are we".

Robby, I truly do not know who is civilized and who is not. Loewen speaks of the old savage-to-barbaric-to-civilized school of thought which dates back to L.H. Morgan and Karl Marx in the last century, but then goes on to say that anthropologists challenged this outmoded continuum, determining that hunters and gatheres were relatively peaceful, compared to agriculturalists and that modern societies were more warlike still. Thus violence increases with civilization.

Let's all move back to the woods if we could find any, because I do hate violence.

Hi Harold we were posting together. Both the French and the native people ate human remains? The natives did not know better or the authors are just stating that? Were the ceremonial cannibalistic rituals a part of the natives' religion? And none of these acts should be called savage? Well what does the word mean then?

I love thinking of how we use and have used words. "Word magic" is a theory involving how language is used socially or politically, in some cases words meaning more than just the strict definition.

I'm sure "savage" has been used as a convenient separator. It connotes what we do is right and what they do is wrong. It means we are advanced and they are not. Using any word that separates people into greater-lesser categories has a risk of having meaning beyond its meaning.

This word "savage" also has a perjorative connotation, is not descriptive. "Small communities of hunters" would be descriptive, but "savage" is just a way to say their lives are not like our lives, therefore, they are less than we are.

Use of the words "civilized" and "uncivilized" are similarly problematic.

We do the same thing in describing religions. Anything not our own is "pagan".

In some ways whatever it is we mean by civilization is measured in terms of technology- the bronze age is more advanced "civilized" than the stone age- and on and on.

Thus the more "civilized" we become in this sense the more apt we are to nuke ourselves back into the stone age- where we might be more "civilized" on the Robbie scale of civilization.

Or at least we might be less apt to have the power to exercise our "savagery" to its extreme.

You have no argument with this author, Betty, when you say words are used as separators; words such as "half-breed, massacre, and war-whooping" to describe native peoples as textbooks were still doing in 1987, but using words such as "settlers" for the white folk. Eurocentric? Loewen states that "textbook authors still write history to comfort descendants of the "settlers" or "explorers." And yet we know that native people both settled and explored the land.

And as MaryPage has brought up the subject of religion let us examine, as Loewen has done, how the history textbooks treat Native American religion:

These Native Americans (in the Southeast) believed that nature was filled with spirits. Each form of life, such as plants and animals, had a spirit. Earth and air held spirts too. People were never alone. They shared their lives with the spirits of nature.

- quoted from The American Way textbook.

The author says that stated flatly like this, these beliefs seem simple, somehow make-believe, and he tries a similar succinct summary of the beliefs of many Christians today:

These Americans believed that one great male god ruled the world. Sometimes they divided him into three parts, which they called father, son and holy ghost. They ate crackers and wine or grape juice, believing that they were eating the son's body and drinking his blood. If they believed strongly enough, they would live on forever after they died.

Wow! That opened my eyes! How about you? That description, however, would never be allowed in textbooks would it? Eurocentric?

Hello, JIM - I loved that description of "civilization." A great contribution to our discussion of the word and one students would love, I'm sure.

Wish I knew where my book on value-laden language is stored; it's probably in a box somewhere. In it are examples of how words associated with groups of people that are valued as "lesser" can also creep into our everyday language in ways we are not even aware of. What came to mind are lists of what we associate with the colors black and white.

Good guys wear white hats. White is pure. Clean. Good. Virginal. Angelic. Black is dark, evil, bad. We refer to black comedies, black humor, dark humor. Help me remember all the sayings. Black as sin. That's awfully white of you. Pure as the driven snow. If writing is not light, it is "dark." Black with rage. Black mark on your record. Black magic. Black despair. White used as innocent, as in white lie.

I honestly don't know the origins of these black-white expressions. I just am imagining how it must feel to someone who is referred to as "Black" as an ethnic description who hears constant references to "black" as the opposite of good, clean, pure, innocent, etc.

Thanks, BETTY, for all those descriptions of how we use the word "black" in a derogatory fashion, which leads us right into the discussion of Chapter 5 entitled "Gone with the Wind," referring, of course, to the movie, but also to one of America's most shameful periods in our history - that of slavery and the Civil War which ensued.

Loewen is constantly urging teachers to apply lessons from the past to the students' lives and here it should not be too difficult, do you agree? Racism is still our #1 societal problem in America today, in my opinion - I see very little evidence of lessening the problem. However in my small world I know of two interracial couples that seem to be happy, how about you? Is this an answer? I have the book PAST IMPERFECT:History According to Movies so shall be back to quote a little about the movie mentioned above.

Ya'll are going too fast for me. I'm still reading chapter 2!

Guess I'm trying to do too many of these book discussions at once! Just can't keep up.

Hey, MaryPage, I'm still waiting for my book to be delivered---it should have arrived by now, but, who knows......

No hurry, MaryPage and Betty, we'll slow it down! No time clock around here that I see.

Has anyone been to Plimouth Plantation? Take a look at this site and you can tour it on the Web and while there click on the Wamponaug Indians (mentioned in the book somewhere, can't put my fingers on the page at the moment) and while on that page click on AVOIDING MYTHS AND MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE WAMPONAUG.

Plimoth

Notice that we are to refer to Indians as Native People, rather than just American Indians, Indians, Native Americans or any other name we might conjure up. I don't think Loewen or the textbook authors know that yet or perhaps they don't agree.

It is my understanding that the American Indians themselves prefer not to be called Native Americans. The federal agency is the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and on the radio I heard the director of this Bureau (who is himself an Indian) state that they prefer this term.

Robby

In Canada they don't like to be called "Indian" Robby. They prefer Aboriginal should you not know their tribe. If you know their tribe, that is what they prefer because they are Nations within Canada. Hence, we refer to them as First Nations Peoples.

A Friend and associate at the ITC who is Mescelero Apache does not mind the reference "American Indian." I note he seems always to use the two words together, not just the word"Indian" alone

Indians prefer to be called by their tribal names- and the ones they use themselves to identify the tribe- not the ones given by white men or other tribes.

This can be a little tricky- trying to keep track of the names.

My Chippewa ( prefer "Annishanabe") friends call the Lakota people by the old name "Sioux" when they are in a certain mood toward them (they still harbor some grudges) because in Annishanbe this means slimy-sneaky snake or something like that.

Harold will point out that generally most tribes give names to other tribes that translate ino "enemy".

We have often taken up those names tribes give each other.

In some cases Indian people prefer no tribal name (generally the name they give themselves translates into something like "the people") but identify themselves only with the clan name they have.

I thought the Canadian general overall name was "First Nations People" but that always is subject to change.

Just don't call them "Tonto"- kind of like calling an African American "boy"

And don't call a woman "sqaw" that is a no no.

Well, I have finished chapter 2, and I agree with the author. It would seem that our public school textbooks are attempting to glorify white Europeans and put down everyone else. I do not know why it would diminish us in any way to tell the whole truth, warts and all. It cannot reflect badly on any of us and it might serve to unite all of us.

On to the first Thanksgiving! Had some direct ancestors present at that meal!

Jim, I like your approach to the civilization question, especially in its admission that much more efficient mayhem and destruction is one of its possible outcomes. Along that line, I'd like to propose a little game. On a piece of paper, make a list of the known civilizations down the left side and across the top itemize the standard criteria for civilizations: Stone-working, trade, settled agriculture, writing, cities, metallurgy, the wheel (including full application), "modern" medicine, and "modern" science. Next to each of your civilizations place an X if it meets the criterion. Restrict your chronology to 500 CE to 1350 CE. What happens when you include China? How does Northern Europe stack up against the Aztec and Mayan civilization? The paper you've used, the printing which you read to do this exercise, the gunpowder used just prior to the first thanksgiving, the sailing technology, the silk Columbus was supposed to find here--where did most of it come from? Whatever may be said about "our" civilization, it does not deserve to be considered the most inventive. You will find some important variations in the period covered. In the best days of the Aztecs and Mayas, many of our forebears had just gotten over the idea that it would be cool to paint themselves blue. There is some evidence of iron metallurgy in Africa. "We" were not so terribly swift in that category, such that the use of iron in a battle in Italy ca. 750 CE is occasion for comment by an eyewitness. And of course as late as 1000 CE, an only slightly exaggerated comment indicates head removal as a cure for the common headache.

Am now into Chapter 3, not about Thanksgiving at all, the title being, I believe, tongue in cheek.

But, OH, what a hoot about the Natives finding the Europeans stank and trying to teach them to bathe! I never knew that! I DID know our ancestors were not bathing in those days, but had read no words that the Natives were!

Just 100 years ago, most people bathed only once a week and skipped the winter months!

Did you read footnote 19, page 329, about Queen Isabella? I would not go back to those days for Gold!

But it is of interest to wonder how they lived and what they thought and hoped for and experienced.

Reference to Jim’s post #212 and Henry’s #226: Measures of Civilization.

While there may be room for discussion concerning the “standard criteria for civilization as given in your post #226, I agree that during the time period considered, Northern Europe would compare unfavorable to China. It was the Europeans who were seeking the silk, and spices from the East. I know of no real interest on the part of the Chinese for European products. They had nothing to offer that the Chinese did not already have. Such trade as existed required payment in gold or silver specie. Also I understand there is evidence that metallurgy and medicine in the Islamic cultures of the Middle East were far superior to European.

Of course the Northern Europeans seem to have had going for them a certain character element that was not apparent in other contemporary cultures during the period. I am referring to the inquisitive spirit or the urge to reach out from the confines of their current station to explore and find new things. Of course I am not suggesting that the “free booting instincts of the Normans” (an H.G. Wells term) be elevated to the level of criteria of civilization, but it was a motivating force leading to the Renaissance, the Age of Discovery, the Industrial Revolution and finally to the current Information Age. As Jim suggested, the process may continue until we finally nuke ourselves back to the Stone Age.

I would suppose that if no one took a bath and every one smelled the same that no one would really have noticed.

The Indians wore little clothes and their streams were undoubtedly much cleaner than those of heavily populated Europe, so bathing came naturally.

Robby

Cleanliness was very important in some tribal cultures and not to others.

Plains tribes often noted the presence of white men nearby by the smell.

Cleanliness was also important to hunters to keep their scent trail down- as well as to warriors.

So the more your tribe depended on hunting and the more it had a warrior tradition , the more apt you were to bathe frequently (several times a day).

Some "advanced" agricultural tribes, on the other had were just as smelly as the white settlers.

Maybe the smelly ones lived in Canada, in the winter. One dies in the cold water we have in winter...if you can break a hole in the ice big enough.

) We are talking -40 F in many places in Canada. Heaven only knows what it is further north in Canada.

Oh, you are all too, too funny! Smelly white people, clean Indians - could the Indians bathe in the winter in the clean streams? Did they have any form of soap or just rub? Brrrr! And the Native people did wear more clothes in cold weather surely! Deerskins perhaps or is that just in the movies?

Loewen repeatedly has suggested that teachers need to do two things to interest students in history: a) bring in emotion and drama, and b) apply lessons from the past to the students' lives.

Would not it be interesting to students to discuss ways that we COULD have prevented so many Indian wars and lives of both the white and the Indian?

I believe the book suggests three: 1)intermarriage, such as the Spanish did in California and New Mexico and the French did in Canada - and didn't you find it interesting that many whites preferred to live with Indians? I never knew that!

2)create a state for Native Indians. Wouldn't this be an interesting discussion - which one? But, of course, that would hardly be an answer in the long run as Indians lived all over the land, some north, some south, some hunted, some planted. How could we accommodate their needs in one state?

3)live together peacefully. Why couldn't we? The book gives many examples why this was impossible, but I do think students might examine those reasons and learn from the past how to deal with racial problems existing in our society today

If you were teaching history, would this spark any interest? If not, what would?

Yeah, I know, same day and all that. But this discussion does go quickly, as MaryPage says. Harold and Louise, I did of course use the criteria one concludes have been used, judging from the literature as we find it today. What we are often asked to evaluate is a culture, which is to my mind almost impossible to do without always tending to serve the culture with which one has grown up. I do defer, when wrestling with this question, to people who can read Chinese sources in their original. Without hearing more from them, I would mention theories put forward by Cipolla in his "Guns, Sails, and Empires," in which he notes that in at least two technical areas, China and Europe measured progress in exactly opposite trends:guns and clocks were consistently "improved" by size reduction in Europe and by size increase in China. Daniel Boorstin puts forward the intriguing theory that China did mercantilism backwards. These are, so far as I can see, just theories for now. Europeans did, by the way, learn how to make silk, at first in the Sicily of the Norman king, Roger II in the mid-12th century. Of course, I know only too well that they had paper, and weren't embarrassed to use a ton of it in their business transactions. Yet they still didn't use "Arabic" numerals in their contracts. Meanwhile in Northern Europe, the rudiments of a woollen cloth industry were in place, and it would soon be ready to pick up its children and swallow them whole.

I think all the kindergarten Thanksgiving plays should be revamped to show the Pilgrims arriving while the Indians hold their noses and attempt to keep their distances!

Can't wait to suggest this scenario to my 7 year old great granddaughter! She is, however, first grade. Oh well, it's never too late!

I know that even now aboriginal people in Canada use sweat lodges. This is done summer and winter. Cold water is used afterwards to cool down as i recall. This could explain the cleanliness of aboriginal peoples in the winter months.

Idris - The original form of hot tubs, saunas or steam baths we find in over-priced spas today! My, my, and the natives didn't have to pay a dime for their sweat baths. I've been told that my grandmother couldn't walk or talk until the age of 5 and a doctor suggested giving the child hot and cold baths several times a day. The shock must have done it because she lived well into her 80's - do you suppose she had an Indian doctor?

It is intriguing that Canadians use the term "aboriginals" for their native people - Australians were the only folk that did that I thought.

Henry We are reading and learning - just keep right on posting about the silk trade and the Chinese and Europeans and ways in measuring progress, at least until we get to Jim's "nuking" progression and then we won't need to worry about the subject ever again. Where else could we learn such interesting cultural facts except here on Seniornet - I know very little about ancient cultures and am loving every post.

The Holiday issue of Sonata is on the Web. Mal was kind enough to put two of my pieces in this issue. One is for Christmas and is called Ahriman. The one closer to the top of the page explains the history of Canadian Thanksgiving. If you would like to read a short history of the Thanksgiving we celebrate here in Canada.

If you have a look at the main page you will also see an article by Robby.

Please click Canadian Thanksgiving.

I just sent an email to Mal saying that I hadn't yet had a chance to peruse this issue but the entire magazine appears fabulous!!

Do yourself a favor, folks. Read it.

Robby

Louise Evans and Mary Page: I cracked up when I read your posts about "smelly" newcomers!!

Incidentally, did anyone see the movie "1492--Conquest of Paradise?" on the Bravo channel on TV tonight? This is one of the Hollywood versions of Columbus' journeys, and was featured in the book "Past Imperfect," which touches on how historical facts are distorted so often when moviemakers attempt to film a story from history.

Lorrie

Finally received my book today and have made it into the 4th chapter. I do love his approach, scholarship, research, footnotes. I expect he would welcome our question of his falling into the traps that he is accusing textbook authors of doing. Above all, he advocates questioning "facts" and sources, sees history as an evolution of discovery---so he'd probably grin at our finger pointing.

One thought I had about the true mystery of these print-no-controversy textbooks---publishers, the best ones, have a pretty good reputation for making sure the average author checks and rechecks his sources. So, why hasn't that requirement been applied to something as important as what young people will be reading and memorizing? The Eurocentrism, a nice word for racism, is deeply embedded in our national conscious.

Someone noticed that the 12 textbooks to which he refers are from the 80s. That makes sense to me for a few reasons (although his reasons may be different). One of his points is that most people learn all they will ever know about U.S. history in high school. So, anyone who graduated from high school before the late 80s, for example, would still hold certain beliefs garnered from those texts. Also, there are hundreds and hundreds of schools whose history texts are not replaced as often as they should because of financial constraints. California has just pulled out of one of its worst recessions. I lived there in the middle of it when the public schools were in such horrible condition---lots of newspaper articles giving the shameful older publication dates of textbooks at certain schools. It's possible that these texts he cites are still being used in many schools.

As I read, I'm shocked at my own ignorance. I had no idea about Wilson's segregating the government employees. I had no idea of the numbers of American Indians who died from imported diseases. I had no idea of the magnitude of the slave trade of the native Indians from Haiti and other places. Isn't it interesting that I did know of certain things, but not the large numbers or magnitude, not the implications.

Often when subjects such as these are introduced, they are shouted down by accusations of "political correctness." That's a barrier to efforts to be accurate.

Lovely story, Idris and a more truthful holiday than the one America celebrates - a harvest holiday. Oh, the sweet desserts, pies and cobblers you are descrbing - they sound just delicious! But you do cook our traditional turkey, something we both share.

Betty So happy you got your book and you, as always, give a great account of the first chapters. Some years ago, we had a traveling Smithsonian exhibit here in Columbus, Ohio which portrayed what the Europeans and the Native people (am trying to be correct here ) exchanged in the way of food and disease. It was an enlightening and beautiful exhibit, huge artificial columns of corn at the entrance and many facts of Columbus' voyages and later Europeans and relations with those they found here, so I knew a little of the diseases that were so destructive to both. Thanks so much - you read at a fast pace and now I think we may start with the subject of racism in the 5th chapter.

We have not used the PAST IMPERFECT book at all so I am going to quote a couple of paragraphs from it on the movie GONE WITH THE WIND.

Recent polls conducted by the American Film Institute showed that GONE WITH THE WIND is, in fact, the favorite movie of most Americans......The film's most controversial aspect remains its portrayal of race relations...(it) may have been the first plantation film to feature Afracan-American characters who don't spontaneously burst into song, but the picture still reflects historian U.B.Phillip's 'plantation school' view of the African-American experience, which portrayed happy-go-lucky 'darkies' loyal to benevolent masters. This view dominated the study of U.S. history during the first half of this century.

Decades later, Malcolm X recalled cringing in a Detroit theater when he first saw the film, and (it) continues to incite anger and discomfort as it subjects new generations to its racist stereotypes.

Loewen states that the most pervasive theme in our history is the domination of black America by white America. Race is the sharpest and deepest division in American life.

I would say it continues to this day. Do any of see that we have made any strides at all toward better relationships between races in this country? Have you any ideas of what we or schools or states can do?

If I may, I just finished the 3rd chapter and learned a lot that I really think Should be taught.

As a Virginian, I have always wondered why the emphasis was on Massachusetts as our Beginning. Now I know, but feel Both stories should be told as they really were and all students should know that the Spanish came first (and the oldest house in America is in Saint Augustine, Florida) and then Virginia and then the Dutch in New York and THEN Massachusetts.

I knew we gave the Native Americans diseases, but the extent staggered me. Never knew we arrived at a Town, complete with empty houses and tilled fields. That is important. As the author states, there was NO WILDERNESS there!

It is disturbing to note that all of this history was well known, directly from the primary sources, clear up until just over a hundred years ago. In other words, we had it right for the first 200 years of white people living here. I get the sense that it was years of a religious crusade to state firmly that God, not human beings, brought the plagues and discovered the food, etc., that changed the history and created a myth. Allowing God or a god or gods to be the scapegoat for what people have wrought all by themselves has been a handy dandy tool for whitewashing all through human history. Most evil of all, it has been used repeatedly to make the victims seem to be the despised guilty parties who brought their troubles on themselves.

And we are still doing the same thing today, here in America and all over this planet, as we blame the HIV virus on those who have been exposed to and brought down by it. I suppose it is a necessary means of scouring away guilt, but I sure wish we would discover another and better way. Our text tells us up to 90% of Native Americans died from white-man diseases brought to these shores. Our newspapers tell us over 50% of Africans are in danger of perishing from AIDS, and perhaps the toll will be even greater.

Another myth perpetuated by the movie Gone With the Wind----and, frankly, when I first read this a few years ago, I said, oh, c'mon, be serious, but I've thought about it and now AM serious about it. The myth perpetuated is that women like to be raped. Remember the scene in the dining room at midnight when a very drunk Rhett begins to crush her skull between his hands, then seconds later, he carries Scarlett, yelling and angry, up the stairs? The very next scene is how happy she is the next morning. Oh, yeah, what we all yearn for, to be physically forced while we are fighting them off and screaming.

What I've thought since first reading that is that the movie was not that unusual for showing a woman "enjoying" being coerced or forced. Pay attention when you're watching the oldies---those messages are quite common.

Sorry to get off the subject.

And when Scarlett proves her metal....he doesn't give a damn. I always hated the ending of that stupid Hollywood movie.

Idris:--Your story about the Canadian Thanksgiving in Malryn's latest marvelous issue of Sonata was beautifully written with well-chosen words but, even more importantly than that, it was a story with feelings!! Don't miss her story, everyone!

Robby

Betty, that's a very important point you make. It's only been in very recent times that a theory has been advanced that the worship of a male god may not have been either universal or even widespread in some areas of the world and at different times in antiquity. That is, there may have been a time, as one book charged in its title, "When God was a Woman." The tendency to disparage women in our culture has only of late come into question. I do have to call Loewen at the very least into question on his appraisal of John Brown. I'm sure he would use John Steuart Curry's mural in the Kansas State Capitol as one more illustration of his point: that, until lately, John Brown was considered to have been mad, and not just in the sense of angry. In a college text that came out in the mid-70's, by Polakoff, et al., "Generations of Americans," the authors give Brown his day in court. But they pretty much fry him by asserting that in 1856, at Pottawatomie Creek, he led a band that murdered five proslavery men and, three months later, saw his son gunned down in revenge. His plan to use arms stolen from the Harper's Ferry arsenal had financial support from a secret Committee of Six in Boston and New York. But his principal miscalculation was in the expectation of an immediate uprising. Of course he was probably caught too soon to make any clear inference on that point possible. While Nathan Hale was evidently guilty of some miscalculation, we don't think of him as mad, in good part because we agree with his cause. However, I think we are not altogether unfair if we characterize Brown as less than cogent. Illegal activities, as in civil disobedience, don't have to be violent to succeed (albeit slowly). But it's hard not to conclude that the mind that hatches a plot such as this is not a bit loose in the flue.

Every human being has an odor whether they are clean or dirty. Sometimes it depens on what we eat. I have heard that people coming from India don't like the sent of us in this country because many of us eat beef and they don't. I remember a few years ago I was riding a bus. A group of people composed of 2 adults and some children. Judging from their language, I think they were from Haiti. These people were very well dressed and obviously clean. However, they did have an odor about them. The olifactory nerve does adjust quite easily so we do get used to the odors about us and pretty soon don't even notice them. If we didn't have running water and indoor plumbing how many of us would be willing to go outside in the middle of winter and jump into the lake or river.

MaryPage - Somewhere, and it must have been high school history, because I took only one other course of history after that - World History - I learned about the Spanish being here first and St. Augustine, Florida; but certainly throughout world history God has always been claimed by both sides in any war - has been a handy dandy tool for whitewashing all through human history. VERY WELL PUT! S/HE must be very tired by now of all the fighting and killing.

I never thought of that scene in GONE WITH THE WIND as a rape scene, Betty, but now that you have brought it to my attention - of course, that it is true! I'll be darned! Have feminists aired this?

Idris Me, too. Always hated that ending and so tell me why is the movie still so popular?

Hello Henry John Brown's story is coming up in the next chapter but we can take him on now if you like. Certainly a controversial subject, but Loewen has this to say and we can believe it:

NOT UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT OF THE 1960'S WAS WHITE AMERICA FREED FROM ENOUGH OF ITS RACISM TO ACCEPT THAT A WHITE PERSON DID NOT HAVE TO BE CRAZY TO DIE FOR BLACK EQUALITY

The author lists 4 white people who died, but there were more, as he states, and the fact that Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman and other black leaders of the day had met John Brown and respected him leads one to believe that the "entire flue was not loose." HA,hahaha - love that! Last week we had a raccoon loose in our flue, he had squeezed himself down our flue chimney - got stuck at the bottom, we had a terrible time, panic ensued on my part! We now have varmint-proofed that chimney, the other chimney has been inacessible for years due to another family of raccoons.

LOUISENot me! I would just become a hermit, I think, rather than bathe in the winter in the stream.

A discussion of John Brown certainly would add emotion and drama to any history class - wake up those tired and lazy high school kids, wouldn't it?

An interesting site concerning African-American History-John Brown from the Library of Congress:

John Brown

Ella, cause it was a stupid old fashioned way of looking at what we as women are. More importantly Brett or whatever the jerks name was ...was a bad boy, a rogue, a twit and a twerp. Some women just love this kind of idiot and men think it is manly. Yuck!

Idris, I am with you there. Clark Gable, as Rhett Butler in GWTW and in every other part he played, always turned me off because he always reminded me, even when I was quite young, of a sleezy con man. The sort who would con old ladies out of their widow's mite and young ladies out of their virginity, and then, in all cases, vamoose elsewhere.

Sorry, off subject here.

Maybe not MaryPage because Hollywood tells some really big whoppers.

Yes, Idris, they didn't tell us that Clark Gable had halitosis so bad that Vivian Leigh hated to do romantic scenes with him. Now I'm sure you were all panting for that nugget of information.

I think it was sad to read how humiliated an African-American must feel to see all those stereotyped depictions. It's something like the resentment I feel whenever I hear Pat and Mike jokes, depicting Irishmen as drunken bums. I'm of Irish descent, and I've always hated it when people start out with, "Did I tell you the one about Pat and Mike....?"

Lorrie

There have been a few movies that have placed Americans in war situations that they were not and could not have been because you hadn't even come in to WW11 yet. Annoying? Yep. One should get one's history correct if you are going to brag about something someone else did.

What's the harm? Kids believe it because they don't read history.

Daily bathing is a fairly recent phenomenon among Americans of European descent, I think. My late (and dearly beloved) father-in-law was born in 1890 and died in 1980. From the age of 14 until he retired in the early 1960's he was a farmer in northern Minnesota. When my husband (born in 1930) was growing up on the farm, they bathed once a week, on Saturday night, and put on clean clothes for church on Sunday. They had no running water and used a wood stove for heating and cooking. In fact, if you saw the PBS special about the 1900 House in England, the household technology they had in the cities in 1900 was far in advance of what many American farm families had right up to World War II.

My father-in-law used to spend several weeks with us in San Diego every winter, from the mid-1960's until just before his death. It was still his habit to take his bath once a week, on Saturday night. Fortunately he only visited us in the cooler months, but even so, along about Friday we began to notice <G>.

I believe the Japanese also found Europeans disgustingly dirty in the early days of contact.

Lorrie’s mention of Clark Gable in connection with “Gone With The Wind” reminded me of a story told by the narrator at the huge Battle of Atlanta diorama museum in Atlanta. To view this spectacle the audience sits in a rotating center grandstand. The narrator explains successive scenes as they are illuminated andcome in the audiences view. One scene shows the body of a dead union officer sprawled across the body of his equally dead horse. The Narrator invites the audience to note the face of the dead officer. Most recognize the mustached face as the face of Clark Gable. The Narrator explains that when the cast was in Atlanta for the première of the picture, the cast was given a VIP tour of the exhibit. Gable seemed suitably impressed with both the exhibit and I suspect his own virtual connection with the event through his part in the movie. “But where am I, “he asked. Well the narrator had no real answer, but the curator also in attendance spoke up at once with assurance that the error would be corrected. The result was, the Gable face on the dead officer sprawled across the dead horse.

Good story, Harold! Of course, Gable was just acting, we can't hold it against the fellow that we didn't particularly like his role, but now that I think of it, which film did I like that he was in - can't remember any.

I just did a little experiment on one of the search engines. I typed in the word "racism" and if all the ones I saw are any indication, people certainly are trying hard to eradicate this ugly stain on civilization. The title of this one intrigued me and on reading it, I discovered it was written by a black man in England and I liked his advice to his daughter at the end of it. What say you?

Racism on its last legs

Hi, everybody! After days and nights of sewing, I am finished with Halloween costumes and can now resume my regularly-scheduled pursuits. (A dragon, a princess, and a baby wizard).

The discussion on GWTW is fascinating me. My roommate in college told me that her mother saw the movie when it was first released in 1939. Of course, I've seen it on television, and when I took U.S. history in college we saw it for class. My instructor was noted on campus for her feminist views; but I don't remember us talking about the rape scene. We saw it while we were studying the Depression, though, rather than the Civil War. Dr. Goodstein said (and I believe) that it had much more to do with the Depression than with any reality about the Civil War. In particular, that "I'll never be hungry again" scene leaps to mind; the message is that hard work and determination will solve our economic problems.

As to why it's still popular, even though everyone hates the ending: it's been described (somewhere) as the first American soap opera. I don't remember the context of the remark, if I ever knew it. It is definitely aimed at a female audience, and the focus is on personal life events such as marriage, love, and relationships. Did anyone read or see the sequel? What did you think?

As for the Indian discussion: I remember hearing that the name of the Navajo tribe means "flathead" in Apache. Here in New Mexico, they seem to prefer American Indian as a general term. The Hispanic population here refers to itself as "Spanish," (as in a Spanish girl or Spanish food). "Mexican" means a person from south of the U.S. border (even though 150 years ago this WAS Mexico). "Latino" is never used here, although it is the preferred term in California (or so I have been told).

I'm behind on the reading (blush...hanging head in shame) so I won't comment on what I haven't read (wish I'd had the sense to do that as an undergraduate). I don't think Loewen ever does much with women's history and how it comes across in the textbooks. The ones I have try; The Americans in particular uses women's voices in the introductory narrative (one particulary affecting one quoted a letter a woman wrote to her husband during WWII to tell him he was a father). I don't want to turn the discussion into a treatise on feminism, but is it true that racism is "the sharpest and deepest division in American life"? I mean, women still make $0.71 to every dollar earned by a man (in the late 60s the number was 68 cents).

Well, I'm off to read. This discussion sure does move fast!

I don't recall the rape scene in GWTW- probably because I didn't view it as rape because (if I remeber correctly and probably don't) it happened after Rhett and Scarlett were married (or did it?) whatever- but if that is true it could be considered another example of the concept that once married a man has a right to force sex on his wife.

But then rape (marital or not is not really about sex but about control).

For some of the plains Indian tribes this situation was reversed. Men prided themselves on their ability to control their sexual urges and abstinence was a high values with them.

I've always wondered about the talk around the camp on both sides before the Battle of Little Bog Horn with Cutser's troops bragging to each other about how many women they had in one night when they crossed the river from Fort Licoln to visit the brothels on the other side- and the Indian warriors bragging about how they were able to remain "pure" in spite of the attrempts by their wives to sully them with sex.

Probably a lot of "lies" told on both sides.

Control was not an issue for most western tribes as the woman was the acknowleged partner in control of the marraige- divorce was simpl;y a matter of putting the husbands saddle out side the teepee or hogan.

In the diaries of some of the white women who were captured by Indians and had Indian husbands a common note is how much better they liked the Indian system of marital relationships where the men were not always forcing themselves on the women.

This, of course, was directly contrary to the popular stereotypes of the time.

Which set of relationships was the more "civilized?" I'll leave that to Robbie to speculate on.

Interesting posts, everyone! Jim, your mention of the popular stereotypes of sexual behavior of male American Indians, including the fate of white women living in a tribe, calls to mind what often happens when groups of people are seen as "lesser than" a dominant group. The lesser groups are often seen as "primitive" and assigned animalistic behavior. This is also part of the long held sexual stereotypes of Black men.

ELLEN - Nice to have you back and I hope the little "beggars" get loads of candy in their bags! I never liked that particular holiday as it was difficult to keep the children from eating all that sugary stuff! Very interesting that you think women's issues are a bigger problem (or as big as) in society than minorities. We've begun to close the gap in opportunities for women, if not salaries, I think; and, of course, there is not the stigma of race with women as there is with minorities.

And, JIM, - Thanks for that info on Indians - I had no idea Indian warriors bragged about being "pure." Wouldn't have dreamed of it as it is the very opposite in most segments of society - well, the only one I know anyway.

In Chapter 5 Loewen devotes quite a number of pages to the whitewash of Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry in regards to slave ownership; two men who are enshrined in America's legacy of equality for all. Rightly so; however he does show many examples of progress in the language since the Civil Rights Movement (pgs. 140-141 particularly). It may take a few more decades before we get it right, if we ever do. What do you think?

If I am correct, the author's main premise in this chapter is the impact historical racism has on the present - on whites and blacks alike. He believes that what white people consider it natural for "whites to be on top and blacks on the bottom." Black students may conclude that all whites are racist, perhaps by nature, so to be antiwhite is okay. We see signs of that attitude everywhere - in the movies, in the media. When police are searching for a criminal the media always tell us when it is a "black" man/woman they are searching for; but the "white" criminal is never identified as such are they? And the recruitment of black athletes whether or not they are college material and then they shove them through academically and what have they after 4 years of being pushed through college?

I remember my history book mentioning the Lincoln-Douglas debates but, of course, not in the detail Loewen would like (pgs. 154-155). Again, I see this author wanting to "pad" the textbooks - he's just not content with those current 4-l/2 lbs. If I were a teacher, this would be an assignment given to a student for an oral presentation; however, given Ellen's reply to a couple of questions earlier, the students wouldn't do it! Well, they are not reading the history books anyway to the extent that they will ever remember much.

Loewen states the economic inequality which leads to inequality in health, education and opportunities. It will continue for many years, I believe, and I don't see any good answer out there, does anyone?

It would be difficult for me, a white person, to teach a class with both black and African-American students the lyrics to the song on pg. 155 - I wouldn't do it. It is so degrading - can't we leave anything to the mistakes of the past and try to do better? Must we always, both races, have the issue of slavery and the past between us - can we ever get beyond it?

Loewen even goes so far as to parallel Nazi Germany after WWII to what happened in the United States between the years 1890-1907 - he had to stretch hard to make that example work, and I don't think he succeeded.

On pg. 168 Loewen does state a bit of progress in race relations when he says:

"Although formal racial discrimination grows increasingly rare, as young Americans grow up, they cannot avoid coming up against the rift of race relations. They will encounter black athletic teams cheered by predominantly white cheerleaders…self-segregated dining rooms in college campuses, and arguments about affirmative action in the workplace……(but) .the climate of race relations has improved, owing especially to the civil rights movement…"

It's a serious problem and one that doesn't go away. Is Loewen correct that we need to put more emphasis on the past, teach the sources of racism, how other societies have dealt with it? Is there any other way for students who think history is bor-r-r-ing?

In my small community when racial incidents have occurred in the school (the only place they ever do occur) they have brought in experts on racial problems and held seminars for all students, at all levels. Are any of you familiar with them and what effect they have? It seems to have helped, we have very few racial troubles, but then we have a majority of white people in our community.

Something I have always wondered about - do we have any African-Americans on Seniornet? If not, why not?

I know I've rambled on here, but Loewen's book is a jumble of facts - poorly organized, in my opinion. He could have said much the same in half the chapters.

I believe racism is still very strong all over this world, but is definitely fading away all the time. If the momentum keeps up, it will eventually disappear completely and we will recognize one human race.

Nationalism is a much greater threat at present. It causes a lot of wars. Nationalism and religion. Is there a word for thinking your religion is the only true religion and all others are heretics who should be dead heretics?

I see the battle of the sexes as the last one to be won. We do have problems in this country, but this is one of the best places to be a woman today. The whole sub-continent of India, the whole continent of Africa, much of Asia and all of the Middle East are the dangerous places to be a woman. Truly dangerous. It will take a very long time to solve these problems.

Speaking of historical parallels, I see one between the Anglo-American admiration of Indian life in nature and the Romans' similar attitudes towards the early Germans in the pages of Tacitus (not, let it be noted, the Huns--of them, the only sure knowledge we have is that they were not Germans). Some of the Romans went so far as to adopt Germanic dress. Seems to me it was in 212 (about a century after Tacitus wrote) that Roman citizenship was extended to all men living in the empire by Caracalla. As to the New England Town meeting, I'd be skeptical of any claim it came from the Indians. Originally, its purpose was the quite undemocratic motive of quashing religious attitudes not to the Massachusetts colony's liking. Only later, in the 18th century, did it become the instrument of "grass roots" democracy for which it is now celebrated. One other item in our democratic institutions that arose before the Revolution and ended up in the Bill of Rights is Freedom of the Press. We have mostly John Zenger in New York in the early 1830's to thank for it. Since we never created any office parallel to the Roman Tribuneship, the press has(putatively) filled this niche. It is a lucky thing, though, that we didn't adopt the Roman consulship. Maybe the Indians helped us by nudging us toward the idea that someone has to be chief, even if temporarily.

In many tribes the Women of the Longhouse had more power than the Warrior Society. In these tribes the women fared better.

Here is the sad thing about trying to reconstruct the American Indian life before the arrival of the Spanish and Portugues and then the French and English and Russian in California. The people who did have written history in Southern Americas and Mexico were totally wiped out and the Catholic friers destroyed the "books" though there are some remaining in archives in the church I have heard. The North American Indians had no history written and by the time european men were beginning to write what the Indians were like, etc. most of the tribes had already been contaminated by European culture (and Germs) so it was very hard to get a true history or a true version of the culture.. I am sure the Leaders of the Indian tribes told the Whites what they wanted to hear as vica versa .No one worked in a true Scientific Anthropology way re: examining the Indian Culture. So most of what you hear and write about today is speculation based on a very few written records when compared to European history. My own Indian ancestor did not know very much history of her tribe and clan.She was choctaw and cherokee of the bird clan. In her older years she learned most of what she did know from her children who learned the history of the Choctaw and Cherokee from European style schools and text books. How sad is that. Faith

In Ontario we have an all First Nations TV station. They tell all of their own stories, discuss problems and legislation that effects them. They seem to have a clear idea of themselves and where they want to go. Many tribes many programs.

MARYPAGE - Excellent points! I would like to discuss each one by itself so starting from the first one, do all of you agree with this assertion:

I believe racism is still very strong all over this world, but is definitely fading away all the time. If the momentum keeps up, it will eventually disappear completely and we will recognize one human race.

No, i don't agree. Racism is about fear of otherness. As people will always be different in one way or another, racism will continue.

Idres is right about that in mho . If it isnt race it is class or religion.There is a definite class distinction in every society though we won't name it that because of fear again.I see class discrimination in the way a person is treated in a Store for instance. Or in the real estate market. If you can afford to live in a million dollor home it does not matter what color you are or what your religion is but it matters in the private clubs. And I think it always will. And we are having Wars about how much land religious groups control. Those are the major wars and could light a Third World War if the Nations are not careful.

Good IDRIS - You don't agree because people will always a fear of people who are different, e.g. religion (such as in Israel today, perhaps?)

Who else wants to agree or disagree? We are taking our own little survey here and I would love to hear from each of you.

Ella, I believe that this Chapter 5 is one of the most important in this book. There are aspects of racism here that are entirely new to me. For instance, we tend to forget that blatant discrimination against African-Americans existed not just in the Southern states, as so many books lead you to believe, but nationwide, as well. In many locales until after Worle War II, and continuing even today in some suburbs, the North too was segregated. Blacks could not buy houses in communities around Minneapolis, could not work in the construction trades, would not be hired as department store clerks in Chicago, and so on.

I'm very much afraid that the taint of racism will linger far longer than one mere generation. As long as people have another "tribe," or nationality, or anyone who looks and acts a little "different" to make them feel superior, there will be that discrimination.

Lorrie

In another thread Robby brought up the Persons with Disability Act. Now think about it, why didn't they get equality. Me thinks it is but another form of racism. Are we afraid of those with disabilities of all sorts. Seems like it to me. If they don't have equality then they can't be included in the greater society.

Racism make us think of colour or religion but i think it goes far further into our societies than that.

Okay, FAITH states there will always be problems we cannot work out, whether it be class distinction or land control. However, that is not exactly racism is it? The question was about racism - the disagreement between races. We have had racism since the African-Americans were first sold into slavery in our country and we are seeing more with the expansion of Hispanics and Asians. Somebody different, non-European.

Idris Maybe I'm missing the point. You speak of fear of others. Do you believe it is fear of African-Americans that is at the root of racism?

Fear of what we perceive them to be. Fear of inter-marriage, etc. I think we must see this as not just being a "person of colour" thing. It goes far deeper than that. It is loss of power. Loss of the position of power.

Sorry, LORRIE - I didn't see your post back there! And you feel that racism will be with us for sometime yet.

We have three persons so far believing that racism will NOT disappear anytime in the foreseeable future, if at all. How very sad. Let me repeat here the basis for our poll: (post #262)

I believe racism is still very strong all over this world, but is definitely fading away all the time. If the momentum keeps up, it will eventually disappear completely and we will recognize one human race.

We haven't heard from a number of you yet, so will wait until later to go into another phase of Chapter 5, which, as Lorrie stated, is one of the more important ones of the book and should not be taken lightly.

Ella, I read MaryPage's quote differently. Her emphasis, it seems to me, is that racism is at the level of a world force, a strong world force, but that there are signs that it is fading. I read her prediction of the eventual total fade as hopefulness.

The one factor that gives ME hope, and it is the only one, by the way, is the current trend of awareness. There are women of every nationality, practically, that are saying, "Enough, something has to be done." It is a world wide awareness that is underway. That gives me hope.

If a woman in Pakistan refuses a man's attentions (won't talk to him), he often will resort to the traditional revenge---throwing acid on her. There are thousands of women who were blinded, permanently deformed and even died after this horrible practice. Yet, other women in that country are speaking out, are interviewing these damaged women and sending the videos to the U.S.

This practice is part of the ethnic tradition. I chose this example to show the power of grass roots awareness and, also, to show that it's difficult to separate race and gender.

A Black woman friend of mine and I used to tug at this conundrum---what's worse, racism or sexism. It may have been a couple of years into our wondering about it when, with sadness, she said one day---racism threatens your life and sexism threatens your soul, so take your pick. I may not feel entirely or exactly how she felt that day, but I can never, ever forget that sentence.

In my opinion, each of us is so built that we must absolutely believe there is someone - some group -which is below us. It would be unbearable to believe that I am at the very bottom -- that every single person, every single group is more respected, admired, and/or valued than I.

To my knowledge there is no nation in the world that does not have some group which it considers a minority - a group that one can look down at. To have to look up to everyone, to every group is so degrading that it forces one into denial. It forces one to believe that the "other" person or group is not as good. In other words, I push myself up by pushing the other down. So in that sense, there is a similarity between racism and discrimination against women. It is also interesting that the Amendment permitting blacks to vote came before the Amendment permitting women to vote.

Some time ago I wrote an essay entitled "What is a Minority" which I wanted to give to Malryn for publication but I gave up the idea because it's a bit too long.

Robby

Robby, to heck with long. If it is good and clearly states your ideas...go for it.

By the way you missed a trip to the little woods tonight, Robby. Sorry about that, but you didn't come.

) Sorry folks, inside joke.

)

I had to go out to the "big city" away from the "little woods."

Robby

How long will racism be with us? How long did the Norman/Saxon hatred last, maybe from 1066 until about 1400 or about 300 years? By that gauge we are overdue if one begins with the first introduction of slavery in the early 17th century. I note that in that case the hatred was bred out by intermarriage. Perhaps our dilemma must await a similar process, which has only just begun. On the other hand I cannot help but note a persistence of ancient intertribal squabbles among the several Serb groups and even such historically close groups as the English, Scotch, and Welch are finding it best to separate to some degree. Considerable intermarriage does not seem to have extinguished their differences completely.

I am inclined to agree with Robby when he wrote in message #278 about a fundamental human need to think his group superior, at least to some. As the old saying goes, “birds of a feather flock together.” Within each flock the group tends to look out for its own kind, others be dammed!

Am struggling to catch up, but what Henry says above about flocks is certainly so true. With chickens, for instance, you can't just throw in a bird of a different feather, they'd kill it. It may be some kind of instinct or animalistic (birdistic?) urge for preservation, but it's that way in all nature, isn't it?

I seem to recall nature programs on several different species in which the approach of a stranger or something a bit different caused consternation and attack.

The thing is, we as people are supposed to be above all that, right? As thinking, reasoning individuals.

I've always looked upon that type of thing as a defensive device and the more prevalent its appearance is, signals to me, at least, the less equipped that individual person is to properly make his own way in the world, so he falls back on unenlightened atavistic behaviors.

But not everybody agrees with that.

ginny

Betty, you caught my meaning precisely.

And I was viewing racism, nationalism, religious fanaticism and sexism as separate problems, with the view that sexism will be the last to go. I am glad that Robby pointed out that black men were given the vote prior to women of any race winning it.

I truly believe racism will disappear before nationalism, nationalism before religious fanaticism, and religious fanaticism before sexism. It is my hope that our built in "pecking system" which Robby brought up will disappear as well, but I rather expect there will always be classes of people, and the bookish will look down on the craftsmen and the craftsmen on the farmers and everyone will look up to the healers and down on the politicians.

Well I hope the bookish don't look too far down on the farmers (tho I do know what you mean, Mary Page, and actually have experienced it) because I'm both?

I would hope the more bookish you are the less inclined you would be to look down on anybody. Knowledge being power?

Or?

What do you mean by "bookish?"

I ask because sometimes we here are accused of being "snobbish," and I can't think of a less snobbish place on earth?

ginny

What wonderful remarks all you made that give us such interesting perspectives on this question of racism! Some of you believe sexism, in both our country and others where women are still treated as property, is just as degrading, if not more so; others believe we will never attain equality as it is human nature that individuals or classes of individuals must have someone below them to lift themselves up from the gutter, so to speak.

I have never thought of that concept before; several of you agree that it is probably true! Something to ponder on today as I go about my daily tasks! We can all agree that historically, wars have been fought over differences and, it seems, we are stating that there is no hope that it will ever change? Birds of a feather flock together and fight when differences erupt, and whether it be in the animal world or the human species it will continue and all the talk of "peace in our time" or "peace for all time" is just meaningless verbiage.

Summing up is not my forte and I may have misrepresented some of you; however, all of it is sad, I see little hope in any of your remarks that mankind has made much progress toward equality for all!

So can we say that it doesn't matter what students infer from history textbooks? Loewen states emphatically in Chapter 5 that black students can get a sense of inferiority from reading history which can lead to anger and violence as they mature; and that the superiority white students feel is enforced by the way history is written.

I'll quote a few examples from the author's text:

The archetype of African Americas as dependent on others begins here, in textbook treatments of Reconstruction (after the Civil War). It continues to the present, when many white Americans believe blacks work less than whites, even though census data show they work more.

Loewen believes textbooks are not treating the SOURCE OF RACISM:

The closest any of the textbooks comes to explaining the connection between slavery and racism is this single sentence from the AMERICAN TRADITION: 'In defense of their peculiar institution southerners became more and more determined to maintain their own way of life'

As Loewen explains this sentence doesn't come close to explaining the origins of racism in our society - it doesn't even use the word "slavery" but calls it their "peculiar institution."

I could quote many more examples from this chapter, but does it matter what our textbooks are disclosing?

That is the question!

Students find history boring; many of us feel racism will continue regardless of education. So, I ask, again -

DOES IT MATTER WHAT OUR STUDENTS ARE LEARNING ABOUT SLAVERY OR RACISM?

Uh, 'scuse me Ginny, that wasn't my comment about the flocks. More than once, Loewen has been accused of playing fast and loose with his sources. Now, in his footnote on Van ("Von") Sertima's evidence, Loewen does point out that his views have come under attack in "Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries." All archeological evidence is open to attack by its very nature. But in the end, what my old boss at Wisconsin, Bob Reynolds, used to say about any question of possible contact across large bodies of water still works for me. Namely, they could have come by boat. So, without looking at the books, I'll credit Loewen with a degree of balance on this point. On the other hand, he seems blissfully unaware of the extreme lack of evidence covering just those questions we'd most like to answer about Columbus and the prelude to his voyages. There are some questions--in fact a good many--that just cannot be answered by the few sources. Those we have are often not narrative, and their immediate concerns: how much one merchant owes another, and when and where he's supposed to pay up, don't address our concerns. And what we have of that kind of record would account, I would estimate, for less than 5% of what was actually produced. At least some of the overseas trade was conducted on the QT for reasons of competition. In the case of rare narratives, viewpoint is of absolutely capital concern. It's tempting to swallow Columbus' own diary whole (he sounds so honest). Most really skillful salesmen do. Racism in our society certainly is a problem. I do think that if I compare my father's first 50 years with mine, that we came farther in mine than in his. I remember, early in that time frame, seeing the primarily African-American parts of Kansas City, and being struck by two conclusions. One is that human beings can't be expected to live this way. The other is that somebody's gonna pay and pay big for this atrocity. Not long ago, I went back to Kansas City, to find virtually all of the ghettos gone and Blacks living in my part of the 'burbs (cool). When I came to Asheville three decades ago, conditions looked like Kansas City in the '40's, and the turnaround seemed to happen overnight in the early '80's. The recent history of Kansas City, published by the Kansas City Star in 1999, written by Rick Montgomery and Shirl Kasper, shows (p.169) that conditions were much worse than I could have imagined in the 1910's.

Thank you Henry for those comments. Let me expound on one: "I do think that if I compare my father's first 50 years with mine, that we came farther in mine than in his."

Yes, I agree. Lorrie mentioned in her remarks a few posts back about the segregation in the North -so true, and I can remember "restricted" deeds can any of you? It is outlawed now, of course, but it is still practiced in other more subtle ways by realtors. Incidentally,Henry in our local paper this morning the first new building is being built in our "poorest and racially-segregated neighborhoods" in 50 years and is being built and will be occupied by white tenants. They stipulated that they could have gone further out in the countryside for land, but why should they do that when cheaper and more accessible land is available in the inner city.

I would even venture to say that Affirmative Action has brought about a middle-class of African-Americans who are college-educated and want the same or more for their children. It was and is worth the money! And other programs such as the EEOC (is that correct?), the bureau the federal government set up to enable citizens to protest discrimination of all kind, has helped tremendously. Does the ACLU get involved in discrimnatory cases? (We should have Rambler Ed here, but he's on his way to his southern retreat).

But, Henry, would you agree with the majority here that say there will always be racism because of differences - whether they be economic, racial, sexual, etc.? Do we need people to "look down upon" in our society for our own self-esteem?

The desire for "separation from" is biological. The very term "pecking order" comes from lower organisms. We have not yet raised ourselves from that level -- if we ever will.

Robby

Not all animals reject all but their own. Remember the gorilla with his baby kitten friend? They were inseparable. And the mama cat who accepted the possum in with her kittens? Or dogs and cats in the same family. The last "odd pair" I saw on television was a goose who followed around her pal, the horse, every day. And what about us, humans, who welcome into our families our pets. We do have power over our pets---a weak part of the argument---but we don't fear them or reject them or attribute to them behaviors BELOW reality. Quite the opposite, really, as we attribute human qualities to dogs, cats, birds, and go out of our way to make them happy.

Of course, things can get out of hand. My cat Sam and I have to "go check" (our words for it) his cat food bowl each time I get up to do anything. At first, we only had to "go check" when he was hungry and it was time to DO something at the cat food bowl---like fill it up. Now, however, my getting up to do anything brings on frantic, excited meowing until we are both peering down into the cat food bowl and I say, "I'm sure glad you reminded me to Go Check," and Sam saunters away, satisfied. If, for any reason, I forget to go through this routine, I'll eventually notice him sitting in the doorway to the kitchen, staring at me. He'll sit there until I finally give in and go with him to "check" the cat food bowl.

Betty;--We (animals and human beings) accept individuals but not groups. I had a dog that nursed a kitten. There are many examples of very different individual animals associating with other individual animals. And so it is with us. It is not unusual for some white people do dislike black people in general but say that their black co-worker is a real nice guy. That is the origin of the expression: "Some of my best friends are . . ." When we observe just groups, we don't get to know anyone.

Robby

OOps! Sorry, Henry, didn't read back far enough, sloppy scholarship, if you can call it that. All I have to do is see the word chicken or flock to seize the keyboard, will go back and read all previous 290 posts so I will not miss a trick (not that that will guarantee anything).

Betty, you and Robby will be interested in the October 30th issue of U.S. News, the cover story is "Do Animals Have Feelings?"

I just read it, and it's interesting, to me.

ginny

Here's what worries me, though, about the tone/direction of many of our posts. Birds of a feather flock together. Pecking order. Biological. Looking down or up at who is more/less than we.

These are all pieces of accepted explanations for how things are. My worry is that, often, justification is circular. We "know" something which justifies something else which proves the first something we "know." Hey, it's biological, right? Must be true.

I don't always have faith in unquestioned "scientific" reasons for how things are. Even though I DO have faith in the scientific process, we know of too many scientific findings that came about through already biased research questions. The research question, "why is there a pecking order" is different from "Is there a pecking order." (Not questioning pecking order, just used as an example.) The research questions, "Why do women use emotion and men use reason to solve problems?" and "Why are men insensitive and women sensitive?"----these are biased research questions.

I guess I'm saying that only recently have our thoughts about HOW to study racial tension and racial divisions begun to change for the better. For one thing, many of our past thoughts on racism have come from white, privileged scientists. We are just now beginning to understand how shortsighted that could be.

Here's an example. There are several older, respected studies that explain why Black children have less self-confidence and poorer self images than white children. Within the last 15 years, though, several studies from the best social scientists (both Black and white) have refuted those previous studies and have found (over and over) that, in fact, African-American children have comparable, and in a few studies, higher self-confidence and better self-images than white children.

A specific finding (that will ring bells for all) is that African American girls do not despise their body image as white girls do. They are less likely to say they hate their bodies, go on crash diets, worry what the guys think, etc. In fact, what the African-American guys think comes into play. The boys say they don't really like too-skinny girls, that they appreciate a good-sized girl.

I'm not questioning any of the specific ideas offered about racism----I just want us to keep a skeptical perspective about what we know.

Betty - I like skepticism in everything written and spoken!

Wow! A LOT of postings since I last visited here.

Ginny, it is hard to describe what I meant by bookish. I kind of meant the educated, but then could not use that because craftsmen and farmers, etc., are often educated as well. I did not mean people who love books, either. I was trying to make a class, which indeed does exist, of those who feel above people who work with their hands in any way (other than the pen or computer) and superior to those who do not APPEAR to have, as groups, large numbers with higher educations.

Actually, I was attempting to draw verbal pictures of that which really defies description in just a few succinct words.

An old saying from my old Father... who was very skeptical.

Don't believe abything you read and only half of what you see.

Anybody remember "Abbies Irish Rose" one of the literary attempts to dramatize inter marriage along cultural lines.

After a period of mixing, blending of genes America's melting pot seems to have coagulated somewhat.

Worldwide we seem to have large populations of ethnic, tribal. culutral groups that are determined to remain "pure" and even when this purity is threatened we have "ethnic cleansing"

It's a complex issue- but one I see some aspects of from the inside as I have twin grandsons (teen agers) with a mixed heritage of European, Chinese, and African roots and a great grand daughter with African and European heritage.

One of the twins just met his (second cousin I guess)- my great grand daugher' and her mother"

His comment- "Wow, she (the mother) really is black."

The great grand daughter is lighter shade as are the twins. The mother is very black (and very pretty as is of course the lively little two year old grand)

The twins are now trying to decide what they should be doing in terms of their dating preferences. I always thought this was something that just happened (the father of the great met his future wife under a Humvee when they were both mechanics at an army base)

One of the twins (the one when asked in school to research his cultural heritage chose Chinese to be the culture to research) prefers to date Asian girls or girls with some Asian heritage.

Neither of them has shown any interest in "black" girls- particularly girls as black as the mother of my great, hence the remark.

Whatever happens I am assured of a rainbow of grands and greats to enjoy.

I remember watching a Star Trek episode with my son, many years ago. Two groups were fighting and murdering each other. Both groups looked alike. They were white on one half of their bodies and black on the other. One of the Star Trekers asked why they were fighting as they looked alike and held all of the other cultural things similarly.

One of the half and halfs was asked why they were killing each other. He replied: Why, they are black on the wrong side.

Jim, that is absolutely a fascinating post! In all honesty, I can say I envy you those wonderful twin grandsons. What a treat you have in store!!

Lorrie

Idris: There is something very profound in that answer you gave in your last post.

I don’t know how many of you are peeking in at the companion book here “Past Imperfect,” but I just finished reading a segment that was a vivid comparison of how Hollywood treats historical films.

“Birth of a Nation” was made in 1915, and I can’t think of any movie that was more blatantly racist. The horrible part of this epic was that it was one of the greatest box-office attractions in the history of motion pictures. From 1915 to 1946, some 200 million people saw this garbage, and it was immensely popular in Germany and South Africa. Ominous?

What shocked me was the knowledge that Woodrow Wilson embraced the idea of racial segregation, even had a private showing of this film at the White House, and made scholarly footnotes to the film, assuring the viewers of the movie’s authenticity. ( I never read these facts in any history text)

From the very outset this film misled Americans, exploited every traditional stereotype, and advanced the popularity of the Ku Klux Klan 100%. The damage done by this one movie has never been completely eradicated. Even after another generation, some of these blatant racial messages live on, and American History textbooks do little to address this.

“Birth of a Nation”----another unfortunate example of how Hollywood has portrayed American History.

Lorrie

When I was in grammar school (that's what they called it in those days), I had a classmate who had one brown eye and one blue eye. Some of the more inconsiderate students looked upon him as some sort of freak.

Robby

Lorrie, i remember talking to my son about that particular episode of Star Trek. I thought it was very good way of explaining why people hate to the point of killing. Hate to the point of other things too.

I grew up in a very poor section of inner Toronto. It was the passing through place for new Canadians. I would say that every five years the neighbourhood changed its ethnic character. Each new group was under suspicion by the groups already settled in the area. I don't think there was hate but there was certainly suspicion.

The groups often gained good jobs and moved on to form rather large communities in other parts of the city. Toronto is now a city of ethnic communities and the pride they have in their ethnic neighbourhoods is wonderful. I sure hope it continues. Nothing can be more rewarding than to visit other lands and tastes in your own city. For example there is "Little Italy," "Greektown," Little India," etc. Toronto is pround of its villages within the greater community of once ethnic young people who now blend in and become the greater multicultural community.

The only blacks, in great numbers, in this part of Ontario are from the Islands and Africa. The slaves that came here from the US, through the Underground Railway (part of which is in my city) are now living in Nova Scotia. I don't believe they have been treated very well.

Jim - blessings on all your grandchildren! As MaryPage said they are the future! We had dinner today with friends whose lovely daughter married a lovely black man, one of the sweetest guys you would ever want to know. They do not plan on having children, both have great jobs and take great vacations and are very happy. Last year, the teacher where I do volunteer work, a pretty young lady about 29 years old showed me pictures of she and her fiance - she is white, he was black. The future perhaps will soon quiet the past?

Do you know, Jim, who first used the term "ethnic cleansing?" It wasn't used by the Nazis was it? I've just heard the expression since the Balkans' problems.

IDris - I've been to Toronto twice and I agree you have indeed a lovely city. Most large cities in the States have ethnic neighborhoods. For years we have had our version of a German Village (which hid itself during WWII). We have an Italian Village, A Greek neighborhood, etc. And, of course, NYC, has a great history of the very thing you are talking about, ethnic groups moving in, moving up.

Thanks, Lorrie, - I read those remarks about that film also. Terrible the impact that the movies have had on generations!

In the next chapter "JOHN BROWN AND ABRAHAM LINCOLN" Loewen makes the case that our textbooks do not present ideas to students, only events that have happened, and often those events have been questioned and textbook authors have had the embarrassment of having to change history as they saw it. (One only has to think of Thomas Jefferson ).

The greatest gift American has given to the world, according to this author, is antiracism and its heroes are countless and for the most part ignored in the history books. John Brown, a radical abolitionalist, led the way and was killed for it, and Lincoln followed with his Emancipation Proclamation and was assassinated for it. Those are the facts.

However, this author has devoted almost 8 pages to the story of John Brown! Necessary to make the case? You be the judge. It's a great story, granted, and full of drama and I believe a teacher could wake up the students with a stirring rendition - I wonder if it has ever been made into a movie. It is not listed in the PAST IMPERFECT book.

Click here for a PBS story on John Brown, it was interesting to note WHO led the U.S.Marines in the attack on John Brown's group.

John Brown

The remaining pages of this chapter deal for the most part with the omission of Lincoln's great speeches - "one of the great masters of the English language. Perhaps more than any other president he invoked and manipulated powerful symbols in his speeches to move public opinion, often on the subject of race relations and slavery." And he laments the fact that the only complete speech provided is the Gettysburg Address and only 4 of them dispense that.

I agree that it is regrettable; however, unless a teacher takes the time to break the speeches down into phrases and the class understands their importance to our nation, and ONLY IF THE STUDENTS ARE PAYING ANY ATTENTION at all is this going to be valuable. Also, Lincoln evokes the subject of God constantly in his speeches - can this be discussed in schools today?

On pages 190-191 are some remarkable facts I did not know about the Confederacy did you? But the paragraph at the top of page 193 is total nonsense, in my opinion. I knew, and I believe most of my generation knew, that the Civil War was fought to end slavery.

Ella, I remember vaguely seeing a movie about Jonn Brown, starring a wildeyed Sterling Hayden as John Brown. Yes, it was in 1982, and there was an excellent mini-series on TV called "The Blue and the Gray." It was very good, very entertaining, although they depicted John brown as a lunatic, a not very sympathetic role. Another example of how Hollywood can misinterpret history.

Lorrie

You might be interested in this letter written at the time. It would appear there is a possability that the war was fought because of economics. The freeing of the slaves made the playing field more even. In other words the north could not compete with the economy of the south as it was cheaper to produce things in the south because of slave labour.

I mention this because we are now seeing much the same effect on our economies because of slave wages paid to third world folks. Just a thought, as i am a Canadian and you know your history better than i do. I do know we covered some of this during research into a poem about the Civil War...it was extra reading. As i was a mature student i had the time to do some research and the reading. Just another point of view but this fellow was an American, writing at the time.

The letter. Please follow the link on the left had side that says "New additions to the site" It is the first link i believe.

Idris, you might find interesting the book by Hinton R. Helper, written in 1857, entitled "The Impending Crisis." His argument was that the slave economy of the south was paradoxically the main obstruction to economic development in the region. And, of course, the north went on to prove to the south that its overwhelming industrial strength coupled with western farming was too strong a combination.

Henry, it appears to me that we have much the same arguement going on now with the Free Trade Deals we have signed with third world countries. I have no problem trading with these folks as Canada lives on trade. My problem is that the folks who work there for international companies don't receive a living wage and jobs that could be done in North America disappear. Unless we somehow believe that we will produce only workers with a university degree, we are hurting ourselves and not doing the other folks one heck of a lot of good except make them economic slaves. On top of that we have the whole mess of child labour.

There are others that take the other side. I have a healthy cynicism about politcal spinning on both sides but feel arguement No. 1 makes more sense to me.

I thought Loewen did a rather good job in Chapter 7 in developing and explaining the roles played by John Brown and Abraham Lincoln in the days leading to the War. In 1861 as Lincoln assumed the presidency, Northern public opinion was not yet ready to fight and die to end slavery. At first the war was justified as necessary to save the Union after the secession of eleven Southern states became a reality. Yet at the same time popular culture was pregnant with abolitionist slogans and war songs like "John Brown's Body" on everyone’s lips. In just two years the Emancipation Proclamation was possible and the way was clear for the post War amendments ending the condition in the United States forever.

I agree with Idris that there was an economic dimension among the causes of the war and I wish Loewen had addressed this factor in the book. I would not, however, cite fear in the North of competition from slave labor in the South. In actuality slavery as it was practiced in the South was on its last legs by 1861. It was an inefficient system of economic production, hanging on only in the growing cotton and maybe to some extent yet in tobacco. It was not adaptable to industrial production in the North (or for that matter in the South. The North was not involved in the growing of cotton or tobacco. Slavery had been effectively abolished in England by Judicial decision in the 18th Century and throughout the British Empire in the 1830’s by an act of Parliament that provided at least some payment in compensation. In the United States the rush into hostilities effectively blocked the development of these remedies here.

I too remember the emphasis in the history texts even the college texts (like “Civil War and Reconstruction, a graduate course”) painting John Brown as insane. I suspect this reflects the reluctance of society generally to condone any action to change our national laws and custom by force even when the challenged institutions are unjust. I also vaguely remember a 1940’s movie involving the John Brown activities. I think it involved new West Point graduates, Lieutenants Jeb Stuart and George Custer. I am quite vague in my recollection of details but the action took place both in Kansas and Harpers Ferry. I think the death of John Brown’s son in battle was included. Most of all I remember in the final scene the hanging that for the movie at any rate was a public event attended by the young Lieutenants and their ladies.

Idris,

I wonder if the peom you read was was John Brown's Body by Stephen Vincent Benet, an effort by him to write an American Epic poem- Benet did two of them- I forget the other.

It is a remarkable and powerful poem.

As is his "American Names" where the phrase "Bury my Heart at wounded Knee" was a key line- long before Dee brown's book with that title.

I recall that a number of years ago it was produced as a reading by a number of prominent actors reading the different roles-

It never received much critical praise for some reason- I always liked it and used to read portions of it with my junior high school students because it lent itself so well to dramatic presentation with diffferent readers taking parts that dealt with each main character and the poem has a strong distictive metre.

It covers the entire war- starting with I think a slave ship- Brown- a southern soldier- a northern soldier- a slave- a sweetheart-

I'm not sure how accurate it was historically or what "lies" it told but then poetic truth is in a special category of truth.

No question about slavery being the number one battle in the Congress, especially in regard to new states coming into the Union. It was also the chief incentive for Northerners joining up to fight the war. At the very top, among the politicians and leaders, this was the big argument of the day.

The slavery question was not what motivated most of those fighting for the Confederacy. These joined up to fight along side their fathers, brothers, cousins and neighbors. I know in the case of some of my own ancestors, who intended to simply wait the war out and see what happened, when the Yankees appeared at their own town and bombarded it, literally destroying their street, they quickly obtained uniforms of a sort and took up their guns and shot back. General Lee's letter resigning his commission in the United States Army gives the sense of what I am describing here. Bottom line, people usually stick with their own people as opposed to fighting against them.

MaryPage:--You speak of "people sticking with their own people," but Civil War history tells constantly of "brothers on opposite sides."

Robby

For JIM - Your students must have enjoyed their teacher:

Excerpts of John Brown's Body by Stephen Vincent Benet

Question: Who set this to music and how did it come to pass that John Brown's body was sung to this tune?

Battle Hymn of the Republic

I will always associate that song with JFK's funeral when it was sung by Andy Williams as the casket was being carried from the church.

The “Battle Hymn Of The Republic” remains as applicable to today’s issues involving questions of freedom and oppression as it was in 1860. This is because of the lyric never once mention the actual 1860’s issue. The reference is through abstract and symbolic words. The only limitation today is that since the symbolism used is Christian, it probably does not have the same impact on people of other religious faiths.

I remember the long “John Brown’s Body” book length poem by Stephen Vincent Benet.mentioned by Jim Olson. It was intended as an epic of the Civil War. I also remember another book length epic poem about the same time with the title. “Western Star.” The subject of this work was the peopling of North America beginning with Jamestown. This work at its publication in the 1930’s was promoted as an American national epic on the pattern of “Beowulf.”

Does anyone remember the author of “Western Star?” I remember the author as a woman contemporary of Benet, with the first name of Edna and a last name that rhymed with Benet. Possibly the last name was something like “Maley.” Today Western Star is not mentioned in the B&N or Amazon catalogs. The only place I could find it on the web was in one used book catalog that had the author as Steven Vincent Benet. This sure contradicts my memory. Is Benet correct?

Harole, could that have been Edna St. Vincent Millet?

Sorry, Harold, that should have been Edna St. Vincent MILLAY, not Millet. However, she is not listed as the author of the poem "Western Star." The author given for that is Stephen Vincent Benet, and this is what I found about his poem:

"For Western Star (1943), an unfinished narrative poem, Benét won posthumously a second Pulitzer Prize in 1944."

Lorrie

That's it, Lorrie!

Robby, I had heaps of family fighting on both sides of the Civil War. Mostly families stuck together and fought with the state they lived in. Here in Virginia and all over the South, for most of the young men fighting, it was a matter of they being the ones invaded. Most, though certainly not all, of the battles were fought in the South. My remarks are not meant as a defense of the South, but only to explain that most of these guys never owned a slave and were fighting because their homes were threatened and all the other guys they knew were joining up to defend those homes. You were in the Army once. At the time, you probably joined up because the Japanese attacked us and all the guys you knew were enlisting. It was a "them or us" situation. I doubt you and most of the others, being young men, had heads full of what the heads of state were wheeling and dealing or the geopolitical consequences thereof. That is my point. You were fighting for your country, whatever the reasons for the war. That is precisely what the young men of the South were doing.

Any of you who are enjoying this book might be interested in Loewen's next book, published in 1999, entitled LIES ACROSS AMERICA: What our Historic Sites Get Wrong. Loewen was in our small community of Gahanna, OH last week to speak to the Columbus Academy - a very prestigious and expensive private school (K-12)and it was free to the public. I would have liked to have gone to his lecture and met him, but I was due in Michigan that evening. This school used to be called The Columbus Academy for Boys and we also had a Columbus Academy for Girls, but alas, as times go, they have merged into one. (I think they have but both of them are still in their respective locations, so I'm not sure - beautiful campuses). It is altogether "fitting and proper" that Loewen should be speaking to the very elite white schools of America as their students are the very ones in need of consciousness-raising and, when you read Chapter 12, you may see the need of his speaking to this "elite" group of students. They may need him more than the masses who go to public schools

Thank you Lorrie for your answer to my question. This morning when the question came up, I kept coming with the “St Vincent” middle name but it seemed to close to “Vincent” the middle name of Stephen Vincent Benet, almost too coincidental. I was wrong about her being the author and that is also the way it is credited in the used book catalog I mentioned before.

I have a copy of “Western Star” but I could not put my hands on it when I checked my book stacks earlier. I liked the poem and I like the concept of a narrative poem of the magnitude of Beowulf heralding the birth of our nation. I was aware it was unfinished and in fact all that I remember was the story of the initial beachhead particularly at Jamestown. That filled an entire hard cover book about 1 inch thick. It is tragic that Benet died so young.

Mary I see no need to apologize for ancestors who fought and died for their home. Most were quite innocent of injustices of their governments that may have caused the conflict. My family antecedents largely escaped the war. Only one of my maternal great grand fathers was in an Illinois regiment. There is no family record of his actually being involved in action although his brother, possibly in the same regiment died of dysentery while stationed in Tennessee.

One of my paternal great-Grand parents was a recent immigrant from Germany. Originally he settled in Indiana where he married another German girl. He became a Methodist minister and when the War began he was in the South with a church near New Orleans. Apparently his sympathies were with the North as his wife immediately went up river to Cincinnati where her Sister lived. He joined her there the next year after which the couple went back to Indiana moving to Texas in 1873.

My other paternal great grand parents were newly arrived in Texas from Germany. There is a recording of the U.S. citizenship oath of my great-grandfather and about 20 other male German immigrants in the courthouse at Brenham, Texas. Apparently the oath of the husband sufficed for the wife, as there were no female names recorded. It is dated 1860 about a year before the secession. The Germans were not generally supportive of the Confederacy and there are records of State persecution of German settlers on that account. In any case my relative was not involved in military service though family tradition has him as a gunsmith working in central Texas during the war years.

Ha! Interesting, Harold. That was back when women were not really considered citizens! Their husbands could, indeed, had to speak for them.

Ella, thanks for the comment, and I'll try not to disappoint. The reason why there never seems to be some clear and unimpeachable sequence of history that produced American democracy from Greco-Roman antiquity is history--or more properly, a hole in history--so gaping that one may drive Indian cultural influence or anything one likes into it. Oddly, one finds disappointingly little to support the theory of representative government from Rome of the Republic. Instead, it is buried in the pages of a Roman Legist from a time far into what we call the Empire, that we find the principle, "What touches all must be decided by all." You'd think they'd have thought to write that back when they apparently practiced what he preached. As to the future of racism, I felt it was on doddering legs almost as soon as I read about the 1954 Supreme Court decision. By 1960, I had some notion of what might bring it down, but all my scenarios had whites making the changes. I regret that Loewen was not in a high school class of mine back in the early '70's in which we read the pages of Gunnar Myrdal, wherein he identified any racial problem of America a white problem, that Loewen must not have seen until last decade. I've known about Henry Steele Commager's unfortunate line about "Sambo" for many years. So glad I wasn't standing anywhere near him when he wrote it. Most of my students right here in Haywood County believed anything like the murder of the three civil rights workers an impossibility in their experience. Now, in Asheville, there are annual observances built around African-American culture that are clearly here to stay. Racism will forever be different from what it was. One other thing: Harold, look up Carl Schurz on the 'net.

Henry: Because I am a terrible snoop, I couldn't resist when I saw your posted reminder to Harold to look up Carl Schurz, and I did the same. What i found was a veritable treasure chest of information about a man, a marvelous man, a close friend to Abraham Lincoln, a man who hated imperialism, and a staunch supporter of anti-slavery. His speech about the fallen soldiers after Gettysburg is one of the most stirring I've ever read, I felt it was much more significant than Lincoln's Gettysburg address.

If we had anything at all about this remarkable man in History class when I went to school, I must have slept all through it. Thank you so much for sharing this information. I apologize for sneaking it from your post.

Carl Schurz

Lorrie

Gracious, where is everyone? Is my deodorant not working again? There hasn't been one single post here all day.

Lorrie

Thank you Henry for the Carl Schurz suggestion. I did not recollect this name previously. I plugged the name in the Excite search engine and found many links in English and German. The biographical sketch given by Lorrie describes an extraordinary man.

I checked my 1947 text used in the first American History course (Hicks, John D. “The Federal Union- A History of the United States To 1865,” Houghton Mifflin Co., 1937). Schurz’s name is listed once in the index in a paragraphs on German Immigrants in the 1850’s. The following is quoted from this source.

In the vanguard (of German Immigrants) were the political refugees. Liberals who had taken s part in the revolution of 1848 only to lose out in the end before the forces of reaction. Some men of this type, Carl Schurz and Franz Sigel, for example, soon achieved a greater prominence in their adopted land than the had ever known in Germany.

I suspect that the book used in the second half of the course (1865 –1930) would have more coverage since it was in the post Civil War years that he served in the Senate and cabinet. This book is not available today.

Incidentally a quick scan to the content of the books indicates it may well be infected with many of the misconceptions described by Loewen in the book, but after a quick reading of the text relating to the John Brown event, I do not see where the author calls him insane. He does use the following words:

The scheme was fantastic, and destined to certain failure, but to every criticism Brown would reply, “If God be for us. Who can be against us?”

And

The South refused to regard it as the act of an irresponsible madman, but insisted instead that such an outrage was precisely what was to be expected from the teachings of the abolitionists and their Republican allies.

Though Brown is not passed off as insane, the overall tone of the writing reflects much of the 1920 - 1960's prejudice leading to distortance and misconception of the true nature of the event.

I am watching Charlie Rose interview Ted Koppel and just heard something so upsetting. Rose asked him to repeat something he (Rose) had heard happened to Koppel---something that had almost made Rose cry, he said. So, TK said he was attending a Notre Dame game and was standing in a press box with several big Notre Dame supporters and noticed Mahammad Ali standing in the back by himself. TK walked over and began to talk to him. After some small talk, TK said, "I just wanted to tell you how important you've become to our country, how important the causes you support are to so many people, especially young people. I just wanted to say how proud I am of you, how proud our country is of you." (paraphrasing the best I can) Then Ali leans over and whispers something and because he has difficulty speaking clearly, TK didn't understand. He asked him to repeat it and he does. TK still isn't quite sure he's heard him correctly and asks for a third repeat. Ali whispers the same thing. All three times, Ted Koppel says, Ali whispered, "Still just a n...er."

Then Charlie Rose repeated something Arthur Ashe said on air in an interview with him---that as tough as having AIDS was, it didn't begin to compare with how tough it had been being Black. That race was a bigger factor in his life than a virus that was killing him.

The Ali comment really bothers me. I'm not a life long fan of his but I have great sympathy (and empathy) with his current struggle physically and his great dignity in staying active with wonderful charities---even international travel that is not easy for him to pursue his involvement with those charities. Then the great moment when he carried the torch at the Olympics---that was terrific. As Charlie Rose said, how tragic that above all of that, he feels he's seen as still just a n...er.

I said I was upset, but you know what, I'm not really surprised. I think sometimes we're lulled into thinking that race relations are better than they are. Eruptions remind us though---the video tape of Rodney King, etc.

I know I'm off subject here, but I thought I'd report this interview as it reminded me of some of what we had been talking about.

It's a great reminder Betty and to add to it look what the OJ debacle did to race relations throughout this entire country.

Betty, what an indicting comment, I'm not sure who that damns the most and it certainly is moving. I hope we can look at that, too, during this week, thank you for bringing that here.

Let me just timidly introduce myself and say that I have now read all 320+ posts here and that today I begin my watch as Discussion Leader with Chapter 7, (so you don't think I'm just barging in here), and, having read all your posts, I know I'm in way over my head. What a marvelous, stimulating conversation, it took me all DAY yesterday just to research your urls!

But today, Chapter 7 is electric, I nearly dropped my teeth:CLASS

Class in America.

IS America a classless society? Land of opportunity?

ARE there class structures and if so what determins them (Loewen left this out). Is it economic? Is it prestige? If it's economic, where does that leave the retiree?

Do you agree with him that most Americans think of themselves as "Middle Class?" Do you think of YOURSELF as "Middle Class?" Let's be honest. Is Middle Class the desired status?

What does "Middle Class" mean to you? Two cars in the garage? A chicken in every pot?

This link defines Social Rankings . Are you upper upper? Middle upper?

Here are some criteria from this link:

The Major Dimensions of Stratification: (Max Weber)

a) Power - the degree to which a person can control other people.

b) Weath - Objects or symbols owned by human beings which have value attached to them.

c) Prestige - The degree of respect, favorable regard or importance accorded to an individual by members of society.

Which of those, in your opinion, defines class, Loewen does not give the criteria.

Now why does Loewen bring this up? Because he thinks that if you just TELL a child that there are classes, put it in the text books, he won't blame himself and he will be empowered.

Do you agree with that?

I'm very excited to see some history teachers here and can't wait to get their perspective on that issue. I've taken a straw poll in my area, and everybody was dead 100 percent against ever saying such a thing to a child. How would you present a class society to children? At what age?

Do you agree with Loewen here:

Ninety-five percent of the executives and financiers in America around the turn of the century came from upper-class or upper-middle class background. Fewer than 3 percent started as poor immigrants or farm children. Throughout the nineteenth century, just 2 percent of American industrialists came from working-class origins. (page 209)

What's wrong with the reasoning there? The facts may be accurate but what's wrong with the reasoning?

I also have issues with one of his footnotes, oh gosh SOOOO much to talk about in Chapter 7, we could talk a year on it, do give us your opinions. Can't wait to get to some of the other issues: advertising aimed at class, land of opportunity, upward mobility.

There was a book out not too long ago on how you could tell what class YOU were. I remember one of the questions, do you call what hangs over your windows draperies or curtains? The answer seals your class.

Unfortunately I can't remember the "right" answer but I do remember it wasn't what I thought it should be.

What are your thoughts?

So much more here, can we start with these points?

ginny

I believe there to be classes in the US. just as there is in Canada. Class seems to me to two different things. The first is old money and the other is possessing knowledge through education or specialness that propels one into another class, in some cases.

As for power, the thing that separates those with wealth in our societies as opposed to those with money in third world countries is the right to own property. If you own property you can mortgage it and use the money to make more money through investment. Property rights are very important but do not exist in some countries.

In the early 1980’s there was a great deal of talk in magazines and other media about “the new class” in America based on knowledge skill and ability. The word “technocracy” was often used to tag it. Before the end of the 80’s specific discussion of the “new class” terminated though today it certainly is a principal factor in our class structure.

Class in America as Idris has pointed out begins with the “old Money” wealth inherited in some cases over many generations. I think, however, entry to the upper levels today is relatively easy for the few who possess ability, the necessary mental and/or physical traits required. In both cases birth remains the principal element permitting entry. This includes the tens of thousand actors, athletes and Microsoft/ Oracle/AOL/etc millionaires as well as the current crop of Rockefellers, and Kennedy’s. While I am not suggesting support of the obvious equalizing remedy, I will point out that a 100% inheritance tax would level the playing field with each generation.

Hi Ginny - I do admire your enthusiasm for the subject of class and I agree, many questions arise when one talks about this subject. Loewen says textbooks do not give an analysis of social class and I'm not sure that this is a subject for history. Isn't there a high school course called Social Sciences or something like that? It's been too long since I have noticed what schools are teaching.

Loewen, however, speaks of references to class structure in a few of the history books, e.g. students are asked to describe three middle-class values that united free Americans of all classes. Note that this is historical. Idris is correct, I believe, in stating that ownership of property is, and always has been, unique to Americans and Canadians. It's a standard by which we have been measured in society. How old, big, expensive, what part of town, is your house in? Living on the other side of the tracks - a no no!!!!

As to prestige, power, wealth - those define what most of us would call the "upper class?" Do they not? You can have power, without the other two, can you not? Or prestige, without wealth or power?

Yes, much to discuss in this chapter - It made me very sad to read that only one working American in 13 is self-employed, compared to one in eight in Western Europe! America was founded on small businesses and if we are losing that initiative, we are losing a great part of our heritage.

And, last, but not least, I have mini-blinds or vertical blinds at most of my windows - so what kind of a freak am I? Hahahaha

Or, what do you call the mid-day and evening meals? Lunch and dinner? Or dinner and supper? My mother and I have had the strangest phone calls over these words. "....and then I took a nap after dinner." I have to think a few seconds before I translate silently into "after lunch."

Here's an observation I've made and pondered over the years. Forgive me ahead of time if this isn't very clear. I certainly don't want to offend someone of African-American heritage. And who knows if this has anything to do with class, per se. Second cousin, maybe.

I've noticed that in my own "moving up" in life---not money-wise, but education and association---clothes are very important, but in another way, the "higher" (or something) people are, clothes actually become LESS important. I'm thinking of my evolution from business dressed up to graduate school shabby---and after that, I just stayed, pridefully, shabby. At lunch time at a nice family restaurant in Berkeley,CA, there I and 2 women friends would be, in jeans, t-shirts, tennis shoes. Black couples and Black families would come in dressed to the nines---the mother in an expensive linen suit, beautiful heels, smart jewelry, Coach bag. Maybe 30 different times, I said to friends, "I will never go to that much trouble, ever again."

Now, what's going on here. Do middle class Black families (I'm generalizing, I know) not feel/have the freedom to look any way but dressed up? Is there an element (really stretching here) of still having the JOY, the new money?, of being able to show the world---look how stylish I can be? What I was observing was beyond myself. Middle class and upper class white restaurant patrons looked COMFORTABLE in their clothes, maybe a studied non-chalance for some. The Black families at the nice restaurant looked very intricately put together. Berkeley is completely integrated and every public place is filled with people from many backgrounds---so I wondered about this every place I went.

You dress for where you want to go, not where you are.

There is a sub-group that is very important in terms of class that often has little to do with money...i'll just call it the Literate Class. This group is well educated. Often they don't care about dress as they feel above it or uncomforatable with what that says. They are the well read, articulate people who read and think. It is a special class to my mind because they can be rich or poor. In days gone by this was true of only those who were so rich they did not have to work.

As for usage of words, i'm Canadian and use many words differently than you do. I spell them differently too.

Help! I am only half way through Chapter FIVE here!

First, let me confess that it was not primarily this chapter (7) that was my primary interest in this book. But, to me, the preference for being middle class must reside heavily in the English Puritan segment of our past. Back during the revolution (formerly called rebellion), one group of Puritans even called themselves the levellers. The whole practice of shearing one's long hair and dressing simply was to draw a difference in appearance between the lesser nobility or cavaliers and people who took pride in their simplicity but directness of lifestyle and ethic. Others, seeking a notch even lower, called themselves the diggers. Then there's always Jefferson's vision of American democracy which, if in place today, would mean that most of us owned and worked a family farm. This was what the Romans at least thought they were to begin with: a country of yeoman farmers. Soon after their army saw the world and defeated Hannibal, all that fell into the past. The senatorial class put down the Gracchan effort to break up the great estates with a ruthlessness worthy of the worst we've seen in our own times. I would have to admit that I like to think of myself as middle class. Back in the '60's I used to claim that I couldn't afford to be a hippy, what with all the leather they wore. My boss, when I was a graduate teaching assistant in ancient history at Wisconsin, immediately assured me, when it became apparent that I had decided to grow a beard, that it would not save me a dime in shaving lotion consumption and blade wear-and-tear. But I went on to grow what I still assume to be the first beard worn by a teaching assistant at Wisconsin (obviously a distinction I did not long enjoy). So was I the first Bo-Bo? Betty, what you describe sounds a little like what I've heard described as bohemian bourgeois. If so, we may have arrived at the same point at about the same time. But there are other influences as well: in George Orwell's "1984," remember the disappearance of white collar dress in favor of blue collar? I think the fallout from the Cold War will have to dissipate quite a bit more for us to be able to speak univocally about class. And that is, of course, what we expect, at least in the main, from our historical texts. I would personally tend toward the idea that there was much more class distinction in colonial America than we've been led to believe. Today--well, just yesterday--I read in my Autoweek of a sudden plethora of sports- and performance-cars being offered in the quarter-mil range. If the editors' hunch is true, that this reflects an imminent upward spike in affluence, does one dare hope that all boats will be raised? If raised commensurately, I should be able to go out and buy some cheap ol' Porsche!

hahahah, The very newest technology today on cars concerns airbags which "sense" your "presence," (i.e. take your weight) and then in a crash, inflate or deflate accordingly. I don't need anything sensing my presence, thank you VERY much, the very idea!

This technology along with the seat belt which automatically lessens immediately after impact, is available to us all in the new $100,000 Mercedes L420 or L450, forget which. I do like the new radar which senses (and you can set) the distance between you and the car in front of you and keeps you there except in emergencies, tho, available on three models for 2001: the Cadillac, Lexus or BMW or the Mercedes, starting in the E class. I don't think there is another one, cars are NOT my thing but I thought those developments interesting.

hahahahaa

I won't do what Robby accuses me of as making "nothing posts" and say WOW FABULOUS GREAT IDEAS HERE. You didn't see it here.

I almost did not get IN here yesterday for watching a program on Henry's stomping ground tv, UNC Asheville 33 PBS, called "Western Traditions," on, of all things, the "Dark Ages." I was absolutely fascinated by the premises, delivered in a swallowed vowell British accent.

The illustrations were from illumintated manuscripts (forgive this seque here) which some of you may know are my secret (not any more I guess hahaha) passion. We all know about the so called "Dark Ages," but we don't all realize the beautiful illustrated manuscripts from that time, especially but not limited to the Lindisfarne Gospels of 698 (you know, while they were all running around in blue slogging thru muck)?

Why do I bring this up (except to talk about my favorite thing?)

Because the lecturer made a startling point.

"History," he said, "is all about power. Who gets it, who keeps it, who loses it, who uses it."

Do you agree with HIM?

To me a legitimate question might be, where does this power come from?

What gives ME power over anything or anybody else? And will, as Loewen said, knowing that a class structure exists cause me to feel EMpowered or the opposite?

Let's look at your great responses!

Idris, could you define what the classes are in Canada? What makes one a different class? I LOVED your Literate Class, so in that instance knowledge would be the power, as they say. But economically, it doesn't matter what level those people would be on?

One thing for sure, whatever your economic status, unless your mind goes, knowledge is something you always can keep but is it regarded AS power and who makes that determination?

Are we talking about what other people think here???

Harold, ANOTHER class: "Technocracy”...“the new class” in America, is fascinating, here again is a class that anybody can aspire to. So you're saying then that America is the land of opportunity also and that anybody can get in THIS class regardless of whatever status they were born in, with "knowledge skill and ability.?"

Unlike the very rigid caste system in India where if your father is a garbage picker you are too, next life you can improve if you are good type of thing?

Harold also mentions the social mobilty of today and notes that "entry to the upper levels today is relatively easy for the few who possess ability, the necessary mental and/or physical traits required."

Here Loewen falls a bit down in that he admits the Michael Jordans but seems to sort of dismiss them off to the side. Oprah Winfrey certainly the richest woman in America came from very humble roots. So do we have a THIRD new class, the ENTERTAINER, the ATHLETE???

Did the Puritans have the ENTERTAINER and the ATHLETE? Is this evidence against Loewen actually?

Ella, so you apparently don't think Class is appropriate for a history text and would like to see it under Sociology?

"Idris is correct, I believe, in stating that ownership of property is, and always has been, unique to Americans and Canadians."

Mercy me, no. My goodness, the grand chateaux of France, the inherited castles in England, oh my no, the castles on the Rhine, King Ludwig's mad fancies in Bavaria? Mercy no.

Remember The Good Earth? The whole BOOK was about land ownership if even in inches.

Wonderful provocative thought from our Ella, tho: "prestige" as an entity without "wealth or power." How is that possible. Can you give an example of somebody with prestige without wealth or power??

Betty, that, strangely enough, was not one of the criteria in that book, unless I remember it incorrectly, and probably do, it's lunch and dinner, right? hahahahah

As for clothes, we all know the bum in the supermarket is probably a millionaire!!

MaryPage: I am so sorry, do you all want to slow down or stop here? I was firmly told to take Chapter 7, but we can pause till you catch up if you like.

Henry: Loewen speaks of the "social mobility" of the Pilgrims which surprised me. I thought the Pilgrims were essentially the third sons of nobility in England who, having no hope of inheritance, set out to make their way here. But your information is so interesting: "one group of Puritans even called themselves the levellers." Then there were the ".diggers."

Fascinating.

Yet I believe also that a close analysis of those sigining the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution shows them all to be rich, influential landowners, is that not correct either? So something happened between the Puritans and those who declared their independence? My own ancestor, Pierce Butler, signed the Constitution and was certainly well off as was your example, Thomas Jefferson, "Jefferson's vision of American democracy" which he could well afford to espouse, given his own life of plenty.

I tend to agree with your, " there was much more class distinction in colonial America than we've been led to believe. " How could there not have been?

Henry you have mentioned the Romans a couple of times, is that a particular interest or specialty of yours? I found a very interesting site on the Class Structure in Rome. Fascinating! (Please note that it's "Handout 2-C. You even get Handouts in this discussion)! hahahaha

"I couldn't afford to be a hippy, what with all the leather they wore" hahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa That's a good one!

PS: Henry, the Western Traditions program credited three things with changing the focus of the Western world from the Mediterranean to the Franks: the development of the deep plow, the development of the horseshoe and the invention of the invention of the stirrup.

Do you agree with that? My memory is not what it was, and I don't want to bet a lunch here but I could have sworn that the Romans had horseshoes and that they wrote several treatises on agriculture: Cato, Varro, Virgil, Columella, Palladius: could they all have been ignorant of the "deep plow?"

"Who do you trust, who do you trust?" --The Joker.

So we have one self professed Middle Classer and all the rest of us are?????

Loewen points out a fascinating subject, COMMERCIALS! WHO are commercials in America aimed at, would you say? What class?

Can you name one today that aims itself at the....."working class" or "lower classes?"

Name one.

I know one, BC Powders. Text something like "I have to work hard all day and I can't afford to take time off so I just pop in an envelope of BC Powders and I'm good to go." The makers of BC Powders have admitted their target audience is "Mom n Pop six pack."

Beer also, as Loewen points out, seems to be a target for the working class man.

Why would that be?

Contrast that with:

"O Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz
My friends all drive Porches, I must make amends,
I've come all this way with no help from my friends,
O Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz."

(Actual commercial for Mercedes, 1994).

The most startline difference in commercials in different countries, to me, is that the commercials in America seem geared to prosperity and what the trappings of prosperity are while those, in say, England, seem geared to the common man. I look at those commercials in England and say, WHO would want to aspire to that?

Is THAT more of an indication of class society than what we show on TV?

How about Loewen's premise that if we just tell the kids there IS class in America they will be empowered?

Look at the two candidates now running for President? Do we have any sons of the poor there?

And finally, I must express extreme disappointment in Loewen's footnote #17. Having read, in another life, before the excerable movie "Titanic," all the extant eyewitness testimony and the senate hearing transcripts on the sinking of the Titanic, and having marveled at the difference in eyewitness accounts there was, (even over whether or not the ship broke in two before it went down and what the band played last) I did not ever see the claim that the poor were held down below delibertely or by gunpoint substantiated. Yet the rumor persists as is seen in this little ditty I remember from my own childhood:

So they put them down below
Where they'd be the first to go,
It was sad when the great ship went down.

Thus when I eagerly ran to footnote #17 to find his source, I was somewhat disapponted not to see some new evidence but some study on aging which itself may reference another account, but which I am too disappointed now to follow up on.

Ellen, you collect history text books? I collect Latin text books too, something of a fetish with me, afraid I would miss one. It's amazing how teaching a subject has changed.

I have a funny aside to that, but will hold, this is too long as it is.

Nobody has said if they agree with the premise of Chapter 7 or not. If you were writing the history textbooks of today, would you or would you not include class and at what age and how?

ginny

I believe "class" to be about the same here as in the US. I suppose one difference is that we do not have large groupings of blacks, with the same history. The Canadians who are black are fairly new to Canada and come from the Carribean or Africa.

I also think we have a real problem here with those who have great wealth. There is a tendency not to like them. It is the oddest thing but it is true. There is also, of late, a tendency to dislike those who are very bright. Where this came from i'll never know. I don't even know why. Are we into mediocre as something to be sought after and praised? Very odd.

As for: "History," he said, "is all about power. Who gets it, who keeps it, who loses it, who uses it." I totally agree with that quote.

I think perhaps a better title to Lowen's book would be "What Your Teacher Didn't Tell You" about American History. There is a series of books by Mike Wright with the title, "What They Didn't Teach you About the American Revolution." "What They Didn't Teach You about World War II," ........Civil War", ".... the Wild West".

I haven't read any of them so have no idea what is in them, but it seems like a better way to arouse curiousity in students.

They are products of Presidio Press http://www.presidiopress.com

I found an ad for them in Book Page. http://www.BookPage.com

I have had it with Loewen and "lies".

Jim, it would appear the negative title might help sell the book. It does nothing however to think positively about the very good things about your history.

"O Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz My friends all drive Porches, I must make amends, I've come all this way with no help from my friends, O Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz."

Also a 1969 Janis Joplin Hit song.

I don't know how much this is related to conspicuous consumption, or the advent of TV advertising, but it seems to me there has never been a more visible class distinction than in the past few years. To me, at least, it seems as though the gap between the Have's and the Havenots is widening steadily. I hope I'm wrong.

When we were growing up, I wasn't aware of any such distinction. Oh, I knew from the movies that there were rich people out there, but in our particular world during the Depression, everyone around us was involved primarily in just staying fed and housed. Because so many of us were in the same boat, we weren't all that aware of differences. There was a family who lived in a large house not far from ours, who had a maid (in uniform) and I can remember one long-ago chilly evening when I stood by my bike outside their dining room window and watched this family having dinner by candlelight, attended by a servant, and this was a nightly occurrence! It's funny, though. Rather than envy, I felt admiration, and a sort of determination to live like that some day.

Lorrie

I truly had no idea that there was anyone who lived differently than my family did. Good thing too cause we were poor and i had no idea we were.

)

Jim, please fill us in on your disgust, if that isn't too strong a characterization.

Ginny, so many questions - I'll have to go back to your post in order to attempt to repond. However, I do think as Henry Ford put it - a car in every drive or something like that - that America's dream has been a home, a single home, for every person who is willing to work and save for that dream. I've read and heard that all my life, perhaps I was just listening to the real estate people? Or perhaps it is because my parents lost their home during the depression and never owned another and my husband's parents never owned one; facts that planted the idea of home ownership into our minds early in our marriage.

But to return to the book, Loewen does not like the idea of presenting America as the land of unparalleled opportunity. Why then do we hear or read of so many immigrants today trying to enter the country and stay here? Of course, he does expound on this idea to some length and I'm not presenting it well here, but I do recall that fact being stated.

How do we measure middle-class? The wealthy? The poor? What standards do we use? Income? And as Ginny said, we often don't know or care, but the government does, you betcha!

Of course many of us would not be here if America hadn't been viewed as a land of unexcelled opportunity for quite some time. Sounds like Harold's ancestors arrived here from the same country and at about the same time: Germany of the mid-19th century. In 1848, the Germans came very close to establishing a federal democracy (they almost blundered into it), but not quite. The story goes that my great-grandpa arrived in Peoria with his shoemaking tools and $4. After several years in the leather crafting business, he bought a farm in Illinois and later traded for one in Iowa. My favorite story about him is that he would hitch a wagon and drive to the fair, letting kids get on his wagon who wanted to go but probably couldn't. Admission was by wagon-load, a presumptive family. One time he arrived with quite a few kids on his wagon. The man at the gate said, "Hey, mister, those all your kids?" He turned around and slowly counted, "Ein, Zwei, Drei, Vier..." probably up to the Ein-und-zwanzig range, then turned and said, "Jah, dey all dere," and drove on into the fair.

Henry - loved that story! It seems that the "fair" was an event in their lives they never forgot. It was my grandmother that told me when she was a young girl they all rode horseback to the Middlebourne County Fair in West Virginia and had such a wonderful day. I've always thought what fun that would have been - the young folks riding to the fair on horses, stopping perhaps at the neighbor's farm down the way and gathering their young folks up and on to the next. They were all farmers and had many children - they needed them to help with all the farm chores. She had 13 in the family and she told the story of one young farmer lad who came courting one of her sisters who turned him down, and he said "Well, I'll get one of those Parker girls eventually." He did, that was my grandfather and she said he was the best of the lot although he died young of cancer.

As a pupil, not a teacher, I certainly learned that subtext of class distinction in my history classes. You learn about the Powerful Political and the Masses ..Aristocracies, Monarchies, Republics etc. which while they are taught as describing systems of rule and law, actually describe systems of class at the same time. In our school days we could also see it in the division: Upper Class, Middle Class, Lower Class, which was purported to be describing income but at the same time described much else about class. I for one always saw Language as indicative of class status. In some languages they actually name high and low forms of the language. In the primary grades we were not taught about class.However, we did learn about it in daily activities of living and interacting with others. Perhaps I saw it more as I was raised in a Wealthy Resort Area and we were the Working Class that kept the Upper Class, coming from cities in the summer to vacation here, clean and feed and with fresh paint and wallpaper in their hotels and taverns. We played with middleclass children whose families camped in Free Forest Service camps. And most children in our school were the working class that lived in all the time.Faithp

Ginny, I would not DREAM of having you slow down; just letting you know where I am. What with moving every day since the 31st and finishing, I hope, on the 8th, and reading a dozen different books at once and trying to catch the daily paper and weekly news magazine, etc., I am hopelessly behind and would like to feel free to comment behind the rest of you. Driving 150 miles round trip daily these days taking all the stuff I don't want the movers to take on the 8th.

History most definitely is about POWER, for the most part.

Disappointed Jim does not seem to care for this book. I find it very interesting, and I always admire his remarks. I might nit pick that Lies is a bit strong. More like TEXTBOOK MISTAKES & PROPAGANDA.

If Loewen calls them lies, I will simply say Loewen himself is mistaken on page 146, last paragraph. It roils the blood of most of us Virginians that the majority of the citizens of our country believe, and Loewen CONTINUES with this, that Thomas Jefferson first penned the words "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Not so. George Mason, as all good Virginians know, invented and first penned this phrase in the VIRGINIA BILL OF RIGHTS, which he wrote. His friend (they later fell out over slavery; Mason thought it wrong and freed his and wanted slavery banned in the Constitution. Losing his arguments, he quit the convention and went home to Gunston Hall in Virginia), Thomas Jefferson, BORROWED the phrase with Mason's agreement.

Ginny, you are the first I have heard express who you believed the Pilgrims to be. Most Americans seem to think the whole Mayflower was made up of persons fleeing religious persecution. Not true. The ship was going to Virginia (originally, they thought) to become settlers and make their fortune, and the small flock of Pilgrims paid to be taken along. My Mayflower ancestors were no aristocrats, but perfectly ordinary folk. One was the ship's carpenter, and he married one of the other passengers. It is true the tradition was: first son, the estate, second son, the army, third son, the colonies. But I do not believe there was any nobility aboard that ship. I am not certain about Standish or Bradford, however.

Ginny, I appreciate your Roman history site and comments on the technical shortcomings of Rome. My answer to your question, namely, do I think the great Roman thinkers you named actually did not know of the technologies you list, is yes. They would have lacked a motive for a deep-running plow, as Mediterranean soils respond just as well to scratch plows. But the main problem seems to have been that all the men you mentioned never did accumulate much dirt under their fingernails. It never occurred to them that it might be useful to provide a draft animal with some comfort, as with shoes and a horse-collar. Since Romans didn't log much saddle time, they didn't hit upon the stirrup. I see this as the mirror image of how the history of Greece and Rome was taught in many universities in mid-century (and may still be). At the advanced level, one studied Greece for one entire year, two full semesters. The course ended with Alexander the Great's full accession to power(not with his conquests). Rome occupied one full year the following year. The course on Rome ended with the accession of Augustus, and his systematic nullification of the Republic. At the beginning of the Empire, useful Rome is over. And that's still the way I think. More insistently over time it seems that the Empire is what most people think of when they think of Rome. That's why any notion of democratic ideals and Rome are swallowed up by the slave state it became. I guarantee that in the 19th century, when the Classics were still studied, that anyone who had some familiarity with it could tick off at least two or three dates and laws in the Struggle of the Orders. I promise that at least Jefferson and probably Madison, at a minimum, could do so. Today, I doubt the average college graduate can name one. I have somewhat slipped a chronological cog, I see, in the Puritan Revolution's terminology. Of course, the Levellers and Diggers (along with my favorite, Praisegod Barebones) came along much later than our Pilgrims (mid-1600's). I think it not inappropriate to characterize their American cousins (who got out of Dodge before violence erupted) by the ideals expressed in the English revolution. One of the most amazing history books I have ever read, and which I strongly recommend, is Crane Brinton's "Anatomy of Revolution."

Hi, everyone! I'm about where MaryPage is in the reading (continuing to hang head in shame...) but thought I'd better check in and read, yes, 94 new messages!

Ginny--I don't collect history books exactly...well, maybe I do. Anyway, when we had textbook adoption, I got samples from nearly all of the publishers, except those (stingy) people at Prentice-Hall. I was the only woman in the history department and also not a coach, so the vendors thought (rightly) that I would have a disproportionate say in which book we adopted. So I have lots of handouts, a set of transparencies, and books. I even have tapes of chapter summaries in Spanish!

I also refuse to see Titanic. I can't confirm or deny the keep them in steerage at gunpoint story, but doesn't it seem like a strange story? I mean, stay behind to be drowned so you won't be shot?

Well, I am behind, as I said, so I hope you'll all have patience as I revisit the racism discussion. It was actually a racist argument that resulted in women receiving the right to vote; the idea was that women couldn't vote while the most uneducated black man could. Of course, at that time most blacks still lived in the South, so they had to pay the poll tax or pass a literacy test, which many of them couldn't, so they didn't vote.

Betty mentioned that African-American girls don't have the body image problems other girls do. I can verify that. I don't know why it is, although I wonder if the dearth of black supermodels has anything to do with it.

Discussing God at school: it can only be done in a historic sense, as when describing deism. We can discuss what the different groups believed but not the truth of those ideas. I do teach about the Scopes trial but again we don't discuss whether or not anyone in the room believes in the theory of evolution. Every time I teach Scopes trial, I am asked by a student whether I believe in evolution.

Birth of a Nation actually inspired the rebirth of the Klan in 1915. In that incarnation, the Klan was something of a social club although they still did night-riding. David Chalmers wrote that the Klan in the 1920s was anti-modern, anti-new woman, anti-Catholic, and anti-black (I'm paraphrasing). And 40% of its members lived in three states--Indiana, Illinois, and Ohio.

The OJ Simpson case was extremely divisive racially. The vast majority of blacks thought he was innocent, while the vast majority of whites thought he was guilty. Until recently I thought the concept of the Los Angeles police department framing him was ridiculous, but then I read an article about the police department and now I think it could have happened. I'm much less sure about his guilt as a result. Similarly, racial profiling: I used to think, what a non-issue! But having seen a report on The Awful Truth (Bravo on Fridays), it is absolutely outrageous.

Okay, on to the class system in America: I know that I talked about the class system. Certainly in colonial times, and during the industrial revolution. But I think that about the time of the turn of the century, it just drops out of my class discussions. Not because it's taboo, but because it's the modern era. Many high schools do have a course called Sociology, in which the class system is discussed. I hadn't realized until now that I only talk about class in a historic sense, not in a modern-era sense (I specialize in the early 20th century, so I consider WWI to be part of the modern era. I was born in the wrong decade...). The only time I can remember referring to class after the industrial revolution was when I'm teaching World War II, and talk about how that was when many middle class women entered the work force for the first time but that women of the lower classes/working class had been working outside the home for a long time.

I looked up Carl Schurz in The Americans to see what it had to say about him. He's listed twice in the index. The first reference is on the Cleveland administration: "In 1884, the Democratic Party captured the presidency for the first time in 28 years with the election of Grover Cleveland. Carl Schurz, a former secretary of the interior, recalled a conversation he'd had with the newly elected president. '[Cleveland asked] what big question he ought to take up when he got into the White House. I told him...the tariff. The man bent forward and buried his face in his hands....After two or three minutes he straightened up and...said to me, "I am ashamed to say it, but the truth is I know nothing about the tariff." ' " (I think that's the right punctuation!) There's also a little box here about NAFTA. The other reference to Schurz leads to a discussion of U.S. imperialism: "Politician Carl Schurz, for example, warned that the expense of maintaining an American empire would outweigh any economic benefits." So, the conclusion is, I still don't know who this guy is, so I will check out the link.

One of the real joys of our discussions here, is that we can just ASK people here if what we see on TV is correct! The people here on SeniorNet have such a wealth of knowledge, we're our own little Ask Jeeves here and it's really nice, I do appreciate all the input.

Let's go back to front: Ellen, me too, on the text books as well as being the recipient of many donations from retiring teachers, my barn is totally full of stuff. Do you have any new photos of our Mascot in the Books, Teddy?

My history teachers in high school never got past WWI. I really bet nobody today memorizes the names of the battles of WWI nor the commanders, do they? The Civil War was almost skipped (this was in New Jersey where the REVOLUTION is the important war, George Washington slept HERE and THERE and HERE and THERE....apparently the man never had a waking moment).

Here's an ironic thing, tho. I have a friend who has taught 29 years in LD and the other day she was enthusiastically telling me of a "new" slant and method, and several "new" ideas and describing it to me? And she had been asked to present it to a conference and all were raves except I already knew the methods, and of more than one of the applications, and she was astounded and a bit irritated, also. Who told YOU she said? OH a book written in the 1930's entitled Teaching First Year Latin.

Mabye those old teachers with their rote and clever ways of imprinting stuff (in certain fields) on one's brain had something going, after all.

Henry, thank you for those remarks. I suspect that "At the beginning of the Empire, useful Rome is over," happens because it's kinda hard to get up enthusiasm for teaching about rulers who appoint their horses consul, don't you imagine? OR eviscerate their wives alive. The later Roman emperors may not be universally much to arouse enthusiasm, and are usually glossed over with emphasis on the noble Republic and the golden age of Rome, certainly in high school, I would think.

Your recommended book Who Killed Homer is just amazing too, and strangely comforting, it's nice to know that those with "less Greek," should not feel alone!

THIS was a revelation to me, and it's exactly what the series said!!! "They would have lacked a motive for a deep-running plow, as Mediterranean soils respond just as well to scratch plows.'

That's what he said, now why, if one thinks about that, would that make a difference? Hate to show ignorance here, I DO wish I could have taped that thing. A root is a root, what's the difference? (Are we beginning to see who failed History 101?)

I think I need to research the horseshoe, I seem to remember something about the shoes throwing off sparks in the night (or maybe it's my brain cells dying), but I do know the stirrup came later. Much later and in a different culture, wasn't it?

MaryPage: Ok good, and feel free to comment on anything at any time, likewise, Ellen M!

MaryPage said, "and Loewen CONTINUES with this, that Thomas Jefferson first penned the words "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Not so. George Mason, as all good Virginians know, invented and first penned this phrase in the VIRGINIA BILL OF RIGHTS, which he wrote."

I didn't know THAT! Is that why the university is named after him?

Thank you for that!

Tell you what I did know tho? There's a place called Washington Crossing State Park in Pennsylvania? And a little church there, that commemorates Washington's Crossing the Delaware to Trenton, the surprise attack? And we all remember the famous painting, which used to hang in the church and which now hangs somewhere else and a replica hangs there.

Once upon a time this little bookish child with the bottle glasses looked at that painting and said "he's going the wrong way." OH embarrasment, shut the kid up, nobody's listening, not even the docent, but the kid with the smart mouth kept on, he's going the WRONG WAY in the painting as its presented, look at it?

That little kid grew up and guess what? A couple of years ago scholars and historians made a huge discovery? Guess what? He's going the wrong way!

You know when you have ONE claim to fame and nobody heard it in the forest you can't even say I told you so! hahahahaha

Henry, the charming story of your great grandfather and the fair is one of the problems I have with Loewen's remarks inserted into my last post: it's not fair to take a reckoning at the turn of the century, the immigrants had just GOTTEN here and were still coming. I have some problems with his results printed on pAGE 209. Where are the results for today??? What's the percentage TODAY of the children of immigrants and farmers who hold the power?

Ella, you said, "Loewen does not like the idea of presenting America as the land of unparalleled opportunity. Why then do we hear or read of so many immigrants today trying to enter the country and stay here?"

Boy, that's the truth, isn't it? People risk their lives by boat or by crawling under fences, risk it all to come here. That's a great point!

I think the immigrant experience is one of the most exciting and interesting things to read about there is. I have a particular interest in reading of the Jewish immigrants in NYC, fascinating how they slaved so that their children could prosper. And they weren't the only ones. Have you all been to Ellis Island? It's so moving, it brings tears to your eyes and all around you the conversation is from those who went thru, it's truly something nobody should miss. I can't imagine the strength it would take to come to a completely foreign country, not speaking the language, having no money and making a way. Truly the stuff of legend.

Harold, thank you for the Joplin credit, I printed out your German ancestor's story for my husband,who found it most interesting, his own great great grandfather, I think it was, immigrated here from Germany to Georgia where he immediately got caught up in the civil war and was killed on James Island. There is an entire cemetery for Germans in Charleston SC, and the management there is very helpful in researching the graves of family members. When you begin to scratch the surface of this kind of thing it's AMAZING what's underneath.

Harold himself has a tresure trove of archival photos of his own family, I urge everybody to click on his name and visit his own site where he's putting them up. We must think of some great way to display them here or even to just learn about them, it's marvelous.

Idris said something VERY telling and refutes Loewen's whole point: "I truly had no idea that there was anyone who lived differently than my family did. Good thing too cause we were poor and i had no idea we were.

)"

How many times have you heard somebody say this? Now would that path have been easier if somebody had pointed out that there IS a class system in America?

As Lorrie said, " When we were growing up, I wasn't aware of any such distinction. "

Well if you had been, do you think it would have helped or hurt?

Jim, that's a very good point: "I think perhaps a better title to Lowen's book would be "What Your Teacher Didn't Tell You" about American History. "

Wonder why Loewen chose to characterize it as a lie, seems a bit harsh. Of course, some of it IS untruth, but then, again, if you don't know any better, why....is it a lie, or the perpetuation of a myth?

Idris, you said, "I believe "class" to be about the same here as in the US"

I wonder what sets "class" in America? If we went by income alone then...what is income supposed to provide? Insulation? Power to do what you want?

I always personally thought that "class" was an entity you took with ou whereever you went no matter what your straits, you either had it or you didn't.

I believe Loewen is talking about something else entirely.

I was interested in Loewen's students's experiment with the "car test," on pages 207 and 208. He's right, have you ever driven up to a gas station (when there were attendants) in a beat up old pick up truck? It's a whole different ball game then when you drive up in something finer.

Perhaps that's the "clothes" issue and the "luxury car" issue, those things, whatever they are, which represent success to us.

Wow on Chapter 8, Loewen here pulls no punches:

What did you learn in school today, dear little boy of mine?
I learned our government must be strong
It's always right and never wrong...
That's what I learned in school.
--Song by Tom Paxton

Big Brother, what do you think? Do you think our text books should say we were and are wrong?

Would that serve any purpose?

Back tomorrow hoping to hear your thoughts on what our textbooks should say about us.

When I look back on all the crap I learned in high school
It's a wonder I can think at all.
But my lack of education hasn't hurt me none
I can read the writing on the wall.

--Song by Paul Simon

ginny

All the posts are very interesting this morning. Thank you all for such insight.

Ginny, please explain this statement you just made (which is your definition of "class" I would think): "I always personally thought that "class" was an entity you took with you wherever you went no matter what your straits, you either had it or you didn't."

I'm trying to sort out in my mind exactly what "class" is, or thought to be, by different people. Different strokes for different folks, is it? What do we mean by the expression? What do historians mean?

That's a good question, Ella, what does anybody mean by class? Whenever I see the word it's in an article about economics. So I guess we could say those making whatever a year are the "middle class." And could we then say everybody aspires to the upper class? To be "classy?"

Is "class" a way of being or just an economic determinator and are thoe who ARE of one particular class different? Are the rich different? And if so what's the use of telling a child that there ARE classes then? How would that make him feel better or more empowered as Loewen says?

Great points as per usual, Ella!

Well, now here's the rub. I was going to come in here and sayHA!

After looking forever through enough Farrier sites to kill a horse and finding Farrier Colleges and Chat rooms I did find the "hipposandals." Check it out:

the Roman horse shoe

But now what to do? The gentleman on Western Tradition made quite a point about the horse shoe thing and the ancient Romans? Even to the aside that there were a lot of limping animals out there??

I dunno. Who do you trust?

Oh and Jeepers! I read further down the first URL's page on the history of the horse and came upon the astounding:

First Stirrups; This Major Part of the Saddle Came From the Orient

The first solid evidence of the stirrup comes from an illustration on a fifth-century A.D. Korean jug. Many believe that the Huns were the actual inventors of the stirrup. In any case, the stirrup provided much greater stability for the rider, allowing him to stand while shooting arrows and giving him added stability when fighting with the sword.

Hello?

4 A.D.???...but actually, when you think about it, THAT kinda ties in. By the time it may have crossed over from the Huns or whoever TO the Empire, it may well be that another couple of centuries had passed. So we can give Western Tradition that one but what about the other?

There's another great site on the history of Farriers going back to the Norman times...amazing. Remember the old saw, for want of a shoe the horse was lost...etc?

Is the internet not THE most amazing thing? But can you TRUST what you find on it?

ginny

Oh! Oh! I just saw a special on the History channel a few months ago. It was about a race of white people they had just discovered actually lived in China way back 4k+ years ago and had red hair and apparently had female leaders and they rode as fiercely as the men and they were big time warriors and buried their dead with all kinds of fancy doo dads. (Hey! Do you think they'll ask me to write a history textbook? NOT!)

Anyway, they were MOST particular about these people being the ones who invented the stirrup. Oh shoot! They have been mentioned on SeniorNet before this year, but not in THIS file. Scythians? I think that is it. Not the Huns, but BEFORE the Huns!

Ginny, I don't think we're in disagreement on the essentials here. Get a look, if you haven't already, at Lynn White, Jr., "Medieval Technology and Social Change." He may have a more definitive version of himself in print by now--he took a ton of flak when he first published it. Why, the very idea that the great system of interlocking fiefdoms arose from the humble stirrup! Surely not, said the profession, even as it set about giving White's thesis, with a little different spin from White's, to every student to be found. I think I remember about the horse sandals, that I wasn't much impressed then, and am not now. My earlier comments seem to find a hefty endorsement in your website, in reference to the inventiveness of the Chinese. Down (or up, if you prefer) to about CE 1500, they're tops in about any technology you can name. Maybe I can shed a little light (or add a little confusion)to the question of class. I don't think this would be possible without being on both sides of this class matter at different times. When I was in grade school in a suburb of Kansas City, we had occasional transfers come to us from various states in the south. My friends and I found it difficult not to laugh at them. The first moment when they talked, especially in oral reading in class, we had a hard time keeping a straight face. Well, about ten years ago, in my old home town, not 30 miles from where I grew up, I discovered that some of my expressions from down here meet with a reaction similar to mine when I first heard them. "Hey," we'll say, and the other person knows you just said hello, down here. But out there, they look at you like your elevator is top-challenged. If you want to freak them out, say, "Are you all right today?" They usually don't realize that all you've really said is, "How are you today?" Because the look you will get, from someone who is not from around here, will say, "And where did the newspaper say that my nearly fatal crash took place?" We announce our status unconsciously, unless we are deliberately trying to appear somehow above the "rat race." Which, by the way, is often the defining trait of the highest strata of our society. We tend to think in terms of pure degree of financial success--a fault I would find with many current discussions of this topic. The socio- part of the whole expression encompasses level of education, general background, even one's understanding of the world. Let me give a quick additional plug: read David Bodanis' "E=MCsquared" and you'll be more conversant with modern physics than you ever thought possible. This is a humanities major speaking!

WHAT?? MaryPage, the....Scythians???? And the CHINESE!!!!!! hahaaha, who knew? Which came first, the stirrup or the egg? haahhaa I will not mention here that if forced to put the Sythians on a map I would be very red faced.

Oh I thought this was wonderful, and speaks directly to Ella's former question: "We tend to think in terms of pure degree of financial success--a fault I would find with many current discussions of this topic. The socio- part of the whole expression encompasses level of education, general background, even one's understanding of the world..."

Now that's kinda what I was getting at in a round about way about "you carry your class with you," it's more than income. Of course Loewen points that out when he refers to the hours a child from the "lower classes" has had when he enters kindergarten in being read to, the difference WAS considerable.

Henry is sooo right about this one, too: "like your elevator is top-challenged" about your accent, I try really hard to put ON what I remember of my South Philly accent when ordering by phone but you can tell that the people in other areas of the country think that I'm actually playing a joke on them with my "Southern" acCENT.

Of course nobody here knows WHAT I'm saying, either.

Listen, Help??

My goodness I felt pretty secure in Chapter 7 but Chapter 8 is so far over my head I can't even discuss this: this NEEDS somebody who knows something about HISTORY!

Call ME the last "naif," are these things all true? Did YOU know them?

...textbook authors have claimed that the United States is more generous than any other nation in the world in providing foreign aid. The myth was untrue then; it is likewise untrue now. (page 217)

It does not disparage this fine institution [the Peace Corps] to admit that its main impact has been on the intellectual development of its own volunteers. (page 217)

The very idea of an American economy is becoming meaningless...(page 219)

From 1953 to 1977 the people in charge of US foreign policy were all on the Rockefeller family payroll. Dean Rusk and Henry Kissinger, who ran our foreign policy from 1961 to 1977 were dependent upon Rockefeller payments for their very solvency. (page 220).

Covert actions are always undertaken by the executive branch which typically lies to the legislative branch about what it has done and plans to do, thus preventing Congress from playing its consititutionally intended role. (page 227)

<For decades our government lied to the families of the lost men [of flights over Russia in 1950] and never made representation to the USSR to get thm back, because the flights were illegal and were supposed to be secret. (page 228)

Good HEAVENS! I'll tell you, I need to hear from YOU all, the buck has suddenly passed here, I have no clue or knowledge on any of this or any of the other information he's presenting in this chapter, it goes on and on.....is this true and did you know about it and if it IS true, does it change in any way YOUR own feelings about the way the government works?

What do you personally think of Henry Kissinger?

Tell you one thing, it's OVER MY HEAD!

The buck has passed here, please help out!

ginny

It is well known that Americans are a generous people however they usually make sure they get in return. Sometimes things given help American business more than those they hope to help. I can think of a number of times this has happened. That however has nothing to do with the view the American citizen has of wanting to help.

As for the flights over Russia and loss of your men...we knew that.

Not to digress too much here, but I wonder sometimes if people of our generation ever realize how much of a part of history we have actually been!

If you’re in my age group, you have witnessed the failure of Prohibition, which had opened the gates for organized crime in this country; you participated in one of the severest economic Depressions the world has ever seen; you sent fathers, brothers, sweethearts, wives, sisters, or even went yourselves, to two world-wide major wars and three “minor” ones; you watched a man walk on the moon; you saw your own President assasinated, and you’ve lived under the threat of total annihilation.

What a lifetime of history in which we have been participants!

Lorrie

Idris, two good points, do you think that people in other countries may sometimes know more than we do about what's going on? The Gary Powers flights, for instance?

I do think Americans are generous, I just had NO idea of all of this.

And Lorrie, that's a good point too, Loewen says the textbooks present some DO ALL government and neglect the power the individual has. I'm not sure that's true, myself, but hey! I shouldn't even be IN here for this Chapter!

I can't wait to hear from everybody on this, thanks so much, Idris and Lorrie.

How about a laugh for today: Oscar Dorr sent me this, stay on it until you hear the music? hahahaha Education

buck passer

Lorrie, I wonder if someday my child or his children will say that they lived through the failure of prohibition of drugs and the worldwide organized crime it inspired. (I've been a slow convert to some of the thinking about the increasing damage of the "drug wars.")

Ginny, I knew that the president knows of hundreds of secret operations every year that either never get told or are lied about. A 48 Hours program did a program not too long ago about a ten year effort to remove (kill) an entire drug cartel. Another took its place, but slowly. Also, I guess there would have been even more covert operations going on during the height of the cold war. Or, maybe I'm wrong, and there are just as many (or more) today.

Ginny, i have been suggesting for months now that you listen to Canadian CBC "As it Happens" and NPR or PRI radio. The latter will give you mainly the BBC news from around the world. The problem it seems to me is that you listen to yourselves talk. There is a whole world out there with views you may not like, but they do give you another point of view of what is going on and how people feel about it.

I listen to "As It Happens" almost every night (at 11 pm in my area) and prior to that at 10 pm listen to "The World" which concentrates on what is happening outside of the USA.

Robby

They are pretty good programs aren't they, Robby? If you want to be the most powerful nation in the world and the world's policeman, i think Americans should know just what the heck is going on out there. As i say, you may not like what you hear but at least you know the other fellows' point of view.

I am on the border and can and do listen to your news, my news and the BBC world news.

ROBBY and IDRIS: Are you talking about listening to the radio? I never listen to the radio unless I am in the car. Maybe I should. My mother listens to the radio all the time.

Yes, Marjorie we mean the radio. You get lovely long programs on different topics on the CBC, NPR and in the middle of the night PRI radio. Sixty second clips don't give you an info at all.

Maybe when your election is over your media will pick up on some of the problems going on right now. There sure are lots of them just waiting to pounce on us.

Marjorie:--I watch the TV about3-4 hours a week -- "West Wing" on Wednesday nights which I consider a superb program and "ER" which sticks most closely to how an ER works. And I might give myself a break from what I'm doing by watching Judge Judy.

But radio is another story. I couldn't live without it. Both my home radio and my car radio are tuned to the two public radio stations in this area -- one with classical music and certain excellent news program, eg Jim Lerner and the other an all news or top notch talk shows such as the Diane Rehm show. She has won awards and deserves them. I do not listen to any other radio outlets because I hate commercials. That goes for TV, too.

My TV was out in the garage for two years and I finally brought it in because there were some videos I needed to study in order to receive a Diplomate. I watch videos much more than TV programs.

Robby

Lorrie, From Message #357. I am inclined to agree with your analysis and final conclusion, “What a lifetime of history in which we have participated.” However, we are seeing the recent past through our own eyes and I suspect that most generations since the reformation would claim to have participated in equal or greater changes over their lifetime.

Concerning the generosity of Americans and their willingness to give in support of a foreign nation in need, I think most often a ”quid quo pro” is involved. The expected return may be international political favor or the domestic political favor of a particular voting block.

Isis, U.S. listeners of National Public Radio are no strangers to the BBC. This of course is the international edition. I suspect it is edited with U.S. listeners in mind. While it is not a whole lot different from the U.S. commercial networks, it is very well done and provides excellent news coverage often presenting coverage from angles different than the U.S. stations. .

My local San Antonio Station formerly carried a Canadian news program in the evening. It was a series of 10 minutes Canadian local events centering on sex or other popular, spectacular events. It has been a long time since they dropped it as being too Canadian centered for South Texas interest.

I like our NPR radio stations. I listen mostly in my car. There are two in San Antonio, one broadcasts classical music and the other carries the usual NPR programming stream. Also I can get KUT the unique Austin PBS station. This station is unique because they do much of their own programs centering on jazz, blues, Austin music, and local interviews, talk, and public interest programs.

Ginnie re your quotes from the book, and your need to understand history eh???? You probably understand it better than this author.

Well I am glad I did not buy this book. I skimmed it for awhile and put it back. I follow the posts here and only occasionally post but I had to say, I am a history buff, and I recognize a line of "lies told to me" , and of course we all recognize conspiracy theoriesand I think there being more "lies" told in the book than you have yet read.. He ought to take the newspaper "The Sceptic" and probably does as he is pretty twisted. That is, in my opinion. I think I had good text books and good history teachers. Fae

Fae. I so agree that as this book progresses I am more and more dissolutioned by what I am reading..

Hi! I'm new to this group, but have been reading this book and am am almost two-thirds of the way through. Although I 've always enjoyed the history of other countries, i've always disliked American history. In discussing this with friends, I've discovered that we all felt the same way and for the same reason--we were taught to memorize what the textbook said were the important dates--what happened when. And that was it. No ideas as to what propelled the action other than the usual myths about the usual heroes. These two-dimensional figures never became thinking, feeling humans in our minds, so how could they matter? Loewen does get carried away and is too often indignant instead of letting the reader form his or her own intellectual and emotional stance. But he gives many sources and direct quotes from a number of written refernces. For years I've been appalled at our interference and the chaos it has caused in some South American countries, especially in Nicuaraga, but am even more so on finding that it has been going on for over a century. This book is an eye opener in many ways.

Robby and Harold - two American citizens who listen to the radio and stations such as NPR - is what Idris saying true? What are other countries saying about us? Are we so terrible in the eyes of others?

It is not patriotism alone (or is it? who knows)that makes me proud of being an American! What is it then? Why are we proud - why are we happy we were born here - if as Loewen thinks America has lied, has profited by its generosity, had initiated inept programs such as the Peace Corps, etc?

Ginny, I think we should each take one of the bulleted statements you quoted from the book and discuss them. I'll take the one about the Peace Corps - JFK's program. I remember thinking at the time it was a grand idea - I still do!

Here is one site from ENCARTA ENCYLOPEDIA which explains a little of the program and links to other sites:

Peace Corps

Of course, information does not suffice! My daughter knows two people who were in the Peace Corps, both spoke of the good that came from the program - they were nurses and helped the very poor in undeveloped countries; they worked at a clinic for pregnant women and taught them prenatal care. My daughter, somewhere in her career or before she dies, wants to join the Peace Corps, probably after her time in the Army Reserves is over. She is in a Medical Unit (as a nurse and officer) and twice her unit has gone to other countries that are in need of help - once to Ecuador and another to Belize. One of them had floods as I remember and appealed for medical help; another time they went to a very poor part of the country and vacinnated all children.

I am outraged that Loewen disparages this good program and, yes, those who have gone have profited in so many ways. They have a greater appreciation for their own situation; a greater understanding of the needs of underdeveloped countires and, yes, their former and future employers do indeed value this type of person. One that can take an intiative and run with it. I might add that my daughter's unit went to the Gulf War and because of her Army experiences was called upon by the university where she teaches to organize and lead a campus-wide innoculation (very hurriedly after 2 students had suddenly died) for Hepatitus C (I think it was C or B - the type that is very contagious and deadly.) As you can see, I am very proud of her.

I'd love to tell Mr. Loewen a few things!

Fae and Pat, I am sure glad to hear that I wasn't the only one who didn't care for the book. I sold my copy to Ella before this discussion got started and this is my first time here. Just wanted to see what the "hoopla" was all about!

It is so nice to hear that I am not the only person listening to the radio instead of watching TV. I have been a radio buff since Hector was a pup, and still enjoy it the most. Good company! NPR plus classical music are my favorites but I also enjoy our Olde Music station. My history teacher never opened a book and seldom had us read ours, but lectured with what seemed like personal stories of history. She was wonderful to hear and gave me a greater appreciation of true history. Now, I think I might enjoy the newest book by Loewn about the historical sites and their mistakes. A little lighter but pointy!!

I think that Americans have every reason to be proud of their country. No one is perfect and the writer's harping on what's wrong without saying...on the other hand, i think is wrong. What country has always done everything right and good? None that i can think of.

Ella:--It is an eyeopener (earopener?) to listen to the programs from foreign nations. If you can't sleep sometime during the night, you can listen to Radio Prague, Radio Moscow, Radio Paris, and other programs from South Africa, the Netherlands, Hungary, Finland, etc, etc, all in English and coordinated through London. I don't wish to influence anyone here or start a political discussion but you should hear some of the foreign editorials against Bush. It is enlightening to hear them talk about their health problems, their discussions about their youth, etc, etc, and almost never referring to America. They know what we are doing, of course, but we have no idea what is happening inside their nations.

Robby

I dont turn on the radio except in the car. I should I know a few family members are always commenting on stuff the hear on radio. I do however often turn on Worldlink on dish network and get a view of the rest of the world. Pictures and comments often with screen notes so you know what is going on. I also watch the history channel if they ever get anything different than second world war or civil war. I have been watching "The British Empire" and though I have read it all before it is really great to see the pictures of the old places and the maps of the terrain..

Now I for one have always known that all holidays are surrounded with add on reasons for having the holidays.My parents actually taugh us that as each holiday came along there were discussions of other cultures and other periods of time and how certain holidays were celebrated and different names they were described by. My family loved debunking "Turkey day" for instance as it was not even a holiday as such when my parents were little. They think the Turkey farmers built it up and got it moved around to their liking. As far as fall festivals are concerned Holloween is bigger in US and unknown in many parts of the world.

All holidays go back in history to such dim beginings they are still misty but it isn't really a "lie" it is just the build up of various generations of practical people who have differing religious rituals to celebrate putting their own cultural stamp on ancient rituals for honoring spring and fall equinox and winter or summer solstice.

We should really save the word lie for an intentional untruth. Faith

Ginny, my problem with this book is still there. For instance, if the author can't back up what he says, he shouldn't be making some of his statements. And of other statements, does he think we are all without information at our fingertips in today's world? Sure, we know that some of the things that we learned in H.S. are false. We should know some of these things considering our ages and experience. I felt that a lot of the book was thrown together and given a "teaser" title just to get money in the author's pocket. That's why I sold my copy to Ella! LOL!!

Lady C!! Welcome, welcome to this discussion, we are delighted to have you join us and it appears you and I had the same high school teacher! hahahah

Are you from New Jersey by any chance? hahahahaa

Ann, it is perfectly all right not to like the book, your comments on the posted issues in the book are valuable anyway. You bring up a good point, too, in your "For instance, if the author can't back up what he says, he shouldn't be making some of his statements." Despite the exhaustive if somewhat....strange footnotes, I was a bit taken aback when Loewen started in Chapter 7 or was it 8 saying " since everybody knows these things, I will not footnote sources." Apparently he does not realize what he's dealing with here, instead of making me feel in the "in" group, I just felt irritated.

I'm not sure what you call that technique but it makes me vaguely suspicious, ignoramus that I am. I agree with you and do have, actually, the new book about American historical landmarks, I believe I'll see if Washington's Crossing is there.

Thank you all for your wonderful insights, Ella, I was especially moved by your passionate defense of the Peace Corps. I agree with you, actually, I'm not sure Loewen succeeded in pointing out any particular abuses the Peace Corps did that justifited his conclusions.

Ella suggests we all take a tenet there and give our say on it, I wish I could, I simply do not have enough knowledge to do so. How about any of you?

Wonderful post, Ella!

Betty, what did you think of the Nixon quote heading up Chapter 9 in connection with your post on the secrets Presidents have to know?

Idris, you know what? That's a fabulous idea! Let's all set a time (I must FIND a radio, because like several others here, I only listen to NPR in the car like Harold and Marjorie) can we all select a night and listen at as Robby says 10 pm or 11 pm, whenever it is, and then come in here and give our perspective on that day's program?

I would love to do that, are you all willing? I don't know where I can find a radio, tho!!!!!

But I will if you all will agree to do that.

We here, living in the boonies, of course have satellite tv and of course get every foreign news service there is including Raiuno from Italy and several other countries. Would that my Italian, German, Japanese, etc, were up to the mark.

But I believe Harold is right, in his assertion that not only are some of the foreign newscasts bent toward a US audience, but that they also present "popular spectacular events."

Every time I travel I never miss the news broadcasts, and will offer this one up for example. One year in Rome I caught an English language broadcast of what appeared to be an uprising in America. It was a HUGE long piece about the hog farmers in North Carolina, of all strange things. It went on and on and on, at least 20 minutes, the length of time we would give to a war on our news, and was about the pollution caused by the run off and the town's uprising and I'm telling you, I thought there was some sort of major thing. When I got back home, eager to show I was up on the news, I mentioned it to several people. What? They said, what are you talking about? I said, the HOG FARMERS!!!!!!!! I thought everybody knew that, my husband said, it's not news. Oh you don't know I said, it's the talk of Rome, I had people ASK me about it. Etc.

Later, much later, a small piece appeared on the local news, but apparently it wasn't quite the uprising it was made into.

I don't know what that says about how news items are presented in the foreign press, but it's true and it did happen.

Let's all listen to a different slant on that news program and bring back in here what you heard and what your opinion is on it. I'm going to TRY to listen tonight, if I can find it, even if I have to sit out in the car.

Faith, is that British Empire good? My VCR decided to tape something else that night, should I try to catch it in reruns? I really do agree with your statement, "We should really save the word lie for an intentional untruth."

You know, Loewen doesn't seem like a sloppy writer to me, do you think his choice of words there is deliberate?

Thanking you all SO much for your thoughts, now can we turn our astonished eyes to Chapter 9, or any other prior thoughts you may have had up till now?

See next post!

ginny

As far as my own previous knowledge is concerned, I find nothing the author says that is untrue. I believe he is attempting to point out a number of things that we JUST DO NOT WANT TO KNOW.

They are still true, of course. We tend to be in denial. Did anyone here ever read a book back, I believe, in the sixties titled THE UGLY AMERICAN? It was not about an ugly man from our country. It was about all of us when abroad and how we are perceived, including, unfortunately, a lot of our diplomatic corps.

I love this country passionately, but am also a dyed in the wool realist.

Disney World History

I thought Loewen started out Chapter 9, "Down the Memory Hole," a bit defensively, especially in the second paragraph where he seems to be attempting to insulate his own approach from our probing eyes.

But I thought his very last sentence in this chapter worthy of note, too:

High school students deserve better than Disney World history, especially since their textbooks are by no means as much fun as the amusement park.

I'm not sure how a book on history could be "fun," anyway, should it be? History by its own definition ...I don't know here!

Does that statement ring any warning bells with you at all?

Then he does the "picture worth a thousand words" thing, saying that all of those famous photos he lists have gone down the "memory hole." I'm not sure, is that true?

Then he talks about the My Lai massacre and how it should be included in text books as well, but says textbooks usually substitute a photo of President Johnson with the troops.

He says, "Objective scholarship does exist in history, which is why I risk words like truth and lies.

He also says

Mere chronological distance did not promote a more accurate depiction of Reconstruction. Because the facts about Reconstruction simply did not suit the "modern experience" of the nadir period, they lay mute during the early decades of the twentieth century, overlooked by most historians. Not until the civil rights movement altered "modern experience" could the facts speak to us.

I wonder what the reaction was in the academic communities when this book came out? I wonder about the role hindsight plays in the telling of history.

I saw an interview post Ted Turner separation with Jane Fonda the other day. In it she does now finally recant and regret her behavior during the Vietnam War. I don't know too many young people who do not know what she did, I'm not sure about what Loewen is saying when he says

One in four, then one in two, and in the 1990's four in five first -year college students have not known the meaning of the four-letter words hawk and dove.

This really confuses me, can it be true?

What of this statement:

[The textbook's ] lack of continued commercial viability suggests that by slighting the recent past publishers of narrative textbooks are somehow meeting a need. Probably it is the need to avoid controversy.

Jeepers, that once again seems to be saying somebody is lying. What do you think about all this? The man must have credentials or he could not write such a thing? What do you history teachers think?

I don't know what to think beyond a sense of unease that something has been pulled over my eyes and a feeling of being kinda foolish as a result?

ginny

MaryPage, we were posting together, I have wanted to read that book forever and never did. Of course, none of us see OURSELVES as any sort of ugly American. Would you think that book is relevant today?

Sometimes, especially in Venice, Italy, it does seem that some groups are more rude than others, I have been just about pushed off a loading platform by certain groups of tourists, but it's not good to make any generalizations about any group, perhaps. I dunno.

Is it that we don't WANT to hear it or we don't have ACCESS or any way to hear it?

ginny

The book is not just about the element you speak of, Ginny. It is also about how obtuse we are about thinking the way we live in our culture is so superior in every way to every other country's culture that we do not remember the rule: "When in Rome ....", and we tramp all over their most important sensibilities and offend them mightily.

While the Loewen book is certainly not above criticism and I can understand individuals simply, “not liking it,” I feel a few words in its defense are appropriate at this time. In particular, I cannot agree with the position that the author did not backup his writing and just threw together the text with a “teaser title” just to get money in the author's pocket. The book is well footnoted and there are almost sixty pages of footnote details at the end of the book supporting the positions taken in the book.

On the matter of interpretation of source material, of course there is room for differing opinions. Many have been expressed on this discussion board and arguments have been built around alternate interpretations quite contrary to Loewen’s. The availability of alternate interpretations of historic events is quite common. To understand the significance of an event it is necessary to know the alternatives. In many (if not all) cases Loewen not only cited sources supporting his alternate case, but just as importantly he also cited the unavailability of source material supporting the traditional view.

I understand the Loewen book has been received rather favorably in academic circles. I have had the opportunity to discuss the title with two members of the professional staff at the Institute of Texan Cultures where I do volunteer work. One was a recent UTSA graduate with a bachelor’s degree in Education; the other is a young UTSA History Dept. instructor who teaches American history. Both had read the book several years earlier. The undergraduate said it had been a required reading assignment in one of his American history courses. The Instructor voiced a strong favorable opinion of the book and its role in high school history education in the U.S. Both were quite strong in their opinion that Loewen’s criticism applying to high school history textbooks, does not apply to current college level history education.

If you are talking about listening to "As It Happens" then i'm in on the project. We could talk about it in the morning as you get to hear it much later than i do. Here it starts at 6:30. As for the through the night broadcasts from around the world...i only hear them when i am awake during the night. My listening is therefore, hit and miss.

I always listen to NPR's "All Things Considered" from 4:oo to 6:00 pm

Mary Page, I am in your camp. I, too love the US, but still recognize its warts. I agree that a lot of what Loewen says is uncomfortable to accept--it's so much easier to accept the myths; and we all need heroes. And yes I did read the Ugly American and have encountered some the few times I was abroad. Unfortunately, I think they haven't yet all gone away, and those few give us all a bad name abroad. Some Americans still get impatient with people who--in their own country--dont speak English and just speak louder than normally, as if that would make themselves understood. One of the things that floored me in Loewen's book: here I thought that the civil rights movement of the sixties created something new, not being aware that reconstruction had granted them almost a century before only to take them away again! I live in Georgia (from Maryland, though) and am constantly taken aback by the narrow perspective I encounter. I don't think the south has ever really joined the union. (Hope I don't offend too many southerners.) One local election ad actually calls one of the politicians a carpetbagger! Yankees are often encouraged to go back up north, too. This is almost like a foreign country if you're from up north; and liberal is a bad word here. The more things change the more they stay the same. I think if we examine the history of any country we need to remember that it is always written by the winners, and in our country, whites are the winners.

Lady C, I am a Virginian and a Southerner, and I am not offended by your truth telling. I live in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. We have the nation's capitol hemmed in by Virginia and Maryland. The Potomac River runs between Virginia and Maryland here, and the local saying is: "If you cross the river into Virginia, you go back 150 years in time."

The saying refers, of course, to attitude. However, I must say that the counties bordering D.C. in Virginia are more modern in their thinking than the rest of Virginia; so much so that the rest of Virginia calls us " Northern Virginia " and the legislature and the governor do all in their power to despise us and refuse to do anything about our problems (traffic, etc.).

So, believe me, I do know what you are experiencing. Other than that, the Southland is a glorious place!

Idris, and Robby: I have a radio, use it only for local news, but I would love to be able to tune in on that Canadian station and hear the news ala canadian style. Can you tell me how to get that station? Must we have a short-wave radio? ( I don't) Is it AM or FM? I live in Minnesota, and am maybe 500 miles from the border. Listening to "As It Happens" and then discussing it the following day sounds like fun.

Lorrie

Lorrie, i get the program live but Robby is listening to the taped program. You can probably get it on your local NPR (National Public Radio Station) I know they get e-mail and voice mail from all over the U.S. If you know where on the dial your NPR station is, then you should be able to get it on a.m. radio.

)

Lorrie:--

Public Radio stations are always FM and they are always at the bottom of the dial. Start at the bottom and work VERY slowly up (not too far) and you will find the public stations. You can recognize them immediately because 1) there are no commercials and 2) they usually have classical music and/or news/talk shows. You can also tell because they always give the news one minute after the hour and the news lasts for 5-7 minutes. "As It Happens" and "The World" are on those public stations.

Robby

I get it out of Buffalo on 970 am. Sorry for the confusion, Lorrie.

)

I didn't know you could get an NPR station on AM.

Robby

I get CBC on FM. Then i switch to 970 am out of Buffalo where i get a series of conferences on all things that effect New York State. This is followed by a re-run of As It Happens. At 10 o'clock 970 switches to PRI (Public Radio International) I can't get that until 12 o'clock on CBC FM.

On a clear night i can get Chicago, New York WABC, Boston (David Brudnoy (?) show on WBZ. If something is going on in those places, then i try to get them. Sometimes...just static. The signal seems clearer after 9 pm.

Saying that the Peace Corps has done more for the people who've participated than for its intended beneficiaries in no way disparages the program or the people in it. To say this is merely to confess that the tasks the Peace Corps addresses are of so large a scale that, even if every man and woman in the US took part, the problems would still be there. Some of the problems cannot be remedied just by education, as their causes aren't even well understood. Harold, you've said much to answer concerns about this book that I appreciate. But I also believe Loewen is not entirely without biases of his own, which require careful reading. In places, he reminds me of the preacher who had annotated the text of his sermon at one point, "Argument weak here--yell like h---!" All arguments based on the assumption that a given work of art depicts an African-American are usually impossible of proof. When you have to go up against Von Daniken, the fellow who posits space craft in 13th century Mexico or Peru, you know he's got a weak argument. In part, I elected to come to the southeast in the belief that it held much potential that had not yet been realized. Atlanta has pretty much proved my guess correct, but has had little practical effect. It's only in about the last ten years that a trip there wasn't more trouble than one to Cincinnati. I suspect that if I told Loewen that I came to Asheville to come to the south, he would say that a parallel move would be to central Illinois to get some notion of the winters in upper Minnesota.

Harold, I stand corrected about "back-up". Probably, I should have read the whole book but so much of it is known to many of us who have lived more than 60 years and are interested in history.

The fact that it is used in college freshman classes says a lot for it. Especially, since it took me this long to discover some these facts and the colleges are introducing the information to the younger population at an ealier time in their lives. Gives them a different viewpoint, sooner.

Nothing about this book is a surprise to me (although the newly revealed facts are). It is a welcome approach to history as a concept, to written history as we know it and to high school textbooks, the author's focus.

In the book Writing a Woman's Life by Carolyn Heilbrun, she proposes that most of the written history of women up through the centuries was written by men. She says, therefore, all we "know" about women of those times may be wrong.

Heilbrun, a professor of literature at Columbia for many years, recently retired, had 3 meanings in mind when she thought of the title Writing a Woman's Life: writing the biographies of women (or about women in general), writing as a profession and writing (designing) one's life script.

In the book, she does a credible job of marking a turning point in the written biographies of women---how women's lives are examined before and after this turning point is drastically different.

So, Loewen's process of examining high school textbooks for myths, lies, omissions, biases, etc., makes perfect sense to me. If he has inadvertently missed a connection here or there, it really doesn't matter. The process of continued examination of history that he promotes assumes there will be mistakes made---that's one of his points.

Don't you love the perspectives in this discussion? I'll come in here thinking one thing and go out thinking quite another, and without your ideas I would have just kept to my own, admittedly narrow view.

Thank you all so much for every thought here, it's like water to a dying man.

I am off to the beach, but have enjoyed my little foray here into history, I have learned a lot, ordered ANOTHER GOOD BOOK, Henry, my suitcase is loaded up with Henry's recommendations, this is such a good learning experience.

Idris, I did so want to end my watch with a chat over the "As it Happens," but as it happened, I tuned to FM as per Robby's instructions, and got blues? A documentary on blues? Sat in the car with husband about to call the white coats at 10 pm.

But I do think it would be fabulous to do this, perphaps as an experiment at the very end of the discussion, perhaps in tandem with Robby's Democracy in America, if you all like, a project.

Harold, thank you for your wonderful comments, I love the way you write, we can see history is important to you, sometimes I wonder if historians have a different way of looking at things? I envy it.

I loved this "To understand the significance of an event it is necessary to know the alternatives. "

So when we look at an event in history we need to know all the alternatives for what could have been done, the background, etc. This may be where I go wrong, it seems overwhelming, but maybe that's where the fascination comes in.

Learning that the Loewen book has been received favorably puts another slant on it, perhaps this book is what all history teachers are saying amongst themselves, (and I loved Henry's ""Argument weak here--yell like h---!" hahahahah OH it's so rare to have this discussion, I love it. hahahaha

Also, Harold, (Harold and Henry, I keep misspelling those names, pretty historic names themselves)....how wonderful that you did your own research: " Both were quite strong in their opinion that Loewen’s criticism applying to high school history textbooks, does not apply to current college level history education. " We appreciate your going to that trouble, thank you! That's good to know. I did not know that.

Wouldn't you love to take a course in World History 101 NOW and see how it's taught at the college level?

I sure would. Maybe we could get one here on SN that we could comment on, that would be fun.

MaryPage, you sold me, that's another book I went out yesterday and got at B&N for the beach. There are so many books that people talk about which I have not read (and I thought I'd read 'em all, NOT!)

When I get back will chat on it!

Lady C: What a provocative statement! "I think if we examine the history of any country we need to remember that it is always written by the winners, and in our country, whites are the winners. "

Is that true for every country? How about China? How about revisionist history, what an interesting statement!!!!!!! I continue fascinated with the Last Emperor story, every book I read has a different opinion and slant.

I'm not sure who the winners are here, I would have said the immigrants have won, myself. (I'm a big fan of immigrants for some reason, don't know why....it's romantic, I guess, in theory, in actuality it's probably much less absorbing.)

Lorrie: Listening to "As It Happens" and then discussing it the following day sounds like fun. I agree, if we can just FIND it, let's do it!

Henry: Great point, on the Peace Corps: "...in no way disparages the program or the people in it," love that perspective, we're SO glad to have you, now I, too, took it negatively are all the other points he made there to be taken in the same light?

I personally think that every effort is not made in vain, and makes a small difference, for good or ill, but that may be some kind of over inflated Americanism too.

But I know when...remember when Hungary fell or was taken over or???? Remember all the people who then flooded to the United States? We had several living in our neighborhood in New Jersey, one young man had commandeered the engine of a train and driven the entire train to freedom, seems like a movie script now but at the time it made a great impression on me, I was barely out of playing with dolls. I was really impressed with what he did, he was a just a kid like I was, but already had done so much.

Ann, I agree, " The fact that it is used in college freshman classes says a lot for it," and apparently it's stuff we need to know, not muckraking.

I think we can look back at what other people really did, the unvarnished truth, not only in our own history, but in the history of other nations, and still feel good about who we are as a nation and as a people. After all, the only person you can answer for is you, supposedly we elect people who we hope will follow our own opinions about what makes a moral society and a good one. That's all we can do, that, and make our own small area of responsibility as good as we can make it.

Did you happen to see the news on CBS this morning? A woman, being interviewed about the election said the candidates changed their stories depending on what class they were addressing!!!! Nearly dropped my teeth, she said the word "CLASS."

Wonder if she read the book.

I agree with whoever earlier said there were other classes besides upper and middle and lower, classes which pertain to the mind. I think that this discussion proves that we, here, are in a class by ourselves and it's very rich, indeed.

Chapter 9 wants to know why the Vietnam War is not taught, and if it should BE taught to high schoolers?

What do you think?

ginny

Betty, we were posting together, are you satisfied with Loewen's treatment (or lack of same) of women's participation and perspectives in the book?

I live not far from Cowpens, SC, which I'm sure you all know was the site of a Revolutionary War battle. Loewen does mention Betsy Ross in pages 31-32, and says that Philadelphia manufactured the myth of her making the first flag, but stops short of saying who did.

The tiny town of Cowpens, SC, claims that distinction, had you heard of that?

Seems a shame that the one time a woman IS given credit, it's not accurate.

ginny

Ginny, it will probably take some time for all of us to find the right stations. It is a good idea.

)

It's easy to find the public radio stations. They are almost always right at the bottom of the FM dial.

Robby

There are also international talk and news radio options online---after downloading Real Player---and maybe other files? Salon.com has a downloadable file, too, with lots of creative talk---literature being read, plays being performed, etc. Very NPR-ish.

I'm behind in my reading and must catch up on the last few chapters, although I have read the very last one, which is the best one I believe and possibly should have been the first.

When Loewen writes of the Peace Corps thusly:

It does not disparage this fine institution to admit that its MAIN IMPACT has been on the intellectual development of its own volunteers.

he is, in my opinion, lying as much as some of the lies he portends to uncover. At first, he says he does not "disparage" and then he proceeds to "disparage" the institution, as we all know that the main impact of the Peace Corps is to lend a helping hand to those people who are in desperate need of services.

My personal take on Loewen's somewhat sly and subtle remark. But for the most part I agree this book should be used as an adjunct to college history courses; he is certainly correct that history is constantly being revised and needs to be an active and debatable subject. And now on to reading the next few chapters.

I've enjoyed the book and the discussion immensely and am glad Ann allowed me to buy it!

A listing of NPR stations can be found by a search for National Public Radio.... But the closest to me is 50 miles... FM ... and both are College stations ... That don't have a very strong signal.. On a very clear night, I can receive their signal... but at that time the programming only includes piped music for students to study by.

So Ginny's been right down the mountain from me all this time! If you're not gone yet, hope you enjoy the beach and that you packed the small and light "E=MC squared." Ella, in a certain sense, the point Loewen is making about the Peace Corps is really to its credit. The Peace Corps does not openly try to influence the countries where it works politically. If it did, the governments whose approval is required for their peaceful operation would, in many if not most cases, refuse to cooperate. When he says that ITT destabilized the Chilean government, he clearly doesn't approve of what it did. It's one of those quick easy generalizations that trip off the tongue that the Peace Corps has not made a difference in the world. I certainly don't know every young person who learned English from a Volunteer and have not tracked him or her through life. Some of those people may yet make some huge contribution which we can't know since we can't know the future. In general, the Peace Corps works at the micro- level, while big corporations can have immediate effects at the macro- level. So in a sense, what Loewen says is more a self-fulfilling prophecy than an outright lie. When he says he doesn't intend to disparage it, I don't think he is deliberately trying to do so.

Ginny, think about it: are those in power likely to permit those they've conquered/dienfranchised to write about what really happened?

Re chapter 9: Loewen left out what I see as a crucial aspect of the Viet Nam war. Where is the picture of the girl leaning over the dead boy shot by the National Guard at Kent State College? These young people were protesting the war. My son and a busload of his college classmates went from Ithica to D.C. to protest. Because many young protesters had been jailed for three or four days, incommunicado and without charges being filed my son elected to be a proctor, wore an armband identifying him as such, and carried a clipboard to note the names of those arrested. He was badly beaten by a mounted policeman and thrown in jail with the others. I learned this much later. By 1972 we had seen sufficient pictures of this war to know what it was like--young men unprepared for this kind of war and unable to identify the "enemy" committing terrible atrocities. And we knew that congress had never declared it a war. It began as a "police action". I and many of my friends saw it as not only morally wrong but an illegal action taken by the executive branch of our government. I promised myself that my sons--both at draft age--would not be cannon fodder for such an undertaking and although financially insecure at the time, I would sell my home and take them and my daughter to Canada if they were drafted. Fortunately that did not become neccessary. But oh! How many young men went there mistakenly thinking they were doing a good thing--fighting the good fight!

Lady C I agree wholeheartedly with your statements. Had I a son that age, I, too, would have fled with him to Canada. How does the son that was beaten by policemen in Washington feel about the government today? And remember the veterans of WWI who camped in Washington and were treated so badly? These events need to be in our history books to make our young people aware of how those in power can behave toward its citizens at times.

I haven't read this chapter - must get at it. The election received all our attention last night and sporadically today.

It was a very odd time in Canada, too. We had your young men here and quite a number of our young men went to the US to enlist. Odd, very odd.

Reading this book has been a real experience for me. Some of the things Loewen has said only confirm the suspicions I’ve had for a long time about the machinations of our various administrations, but I can’t help feeling a sense of disillusionment.

“My country, right or wrong,” doesn’t cut it anymore , and I feel betrayed, a diminishing of the patriotic fervor we have all felt in the past, particularly before and suring the second World War.

To me it started when a young, vibrant President was assassinated before out very eyes, with an ensuing report that was in itself suspect, and the feeling continued in intensity during the Vietnam protests and following events.

What kind of historical pap have we been fed, labeled as American History? And what will be done about it? Will this book alter the way American history is taught in our schools now?

I doubt it.

Lorrie

I believe it is important that we separate in our minds "country" from "government." I love this nation and I say "my country, right or wrong." However, I do not always agree with our governmental representatives. They are often wrong and I will not necessarily follow their dictates.

I fought in WWII for our country and would have done so regardless of which government had been in charge at the time. But upon return, that was another story. The English followed Winston Churchill during the war and put him out as soon as the war ended.

Robby

If I had had a son during WWII, I would have seen him off to war with proud tears in my eyes. If my son had been old enough for Viet Nam, I would have broken both his legs or whatever it took.

There is a new show on the telly on Monday nights at 8 on Fox. I think it is called Boston Public, or some such; it is about a high school. Very, very real. But what I want to share with you, in reference to this book we are reading, is that the Principal is much put upon by this rather vicious lady who sometimes shows up and walks the halls to see what she can find to lodge a protest about. Monday night she screamed that the Social Sciences teacher (I had forgotten completely that that is what they call it now) was teaching that some of our Native American tribes had practiced cannibalism, and she wanted this stopped IMMEDIATELY or heads would fall! This is a too, too real scenario.

Robby, I love this country more than I can say, and it is often right, but when it's wrong we need to look at that and if at all possible try to work toward changing things. You fought a war to stop madmen from committing any more atrocities and taking over Europe and Asia, and all of us were and are grateful for what you did. Do you remember the headlines after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. I was a teen but I remember 3 inch headlines: "Congress Declares War!" That was a real war, fought for admirable principles and legally declared. (Isn't Congress the only govt. body with the power to declare war?) But even there, too many of our young men died unnecessarily--the landing at Normandy is a tragic example--because of the stupid errors of our generals. I cant recall the name of the book that dealt with this, but it had strategic war maps with the locations of and names of the different generals in charge of the war in Europe with vivid descriptions of their actions and the results therefrom. If anyone else read it, please refresh my memory. I'll bet you wont find this info in any or our HS history textbooks!

Don't look now, folks, but we have come to the part of this book where many of us will have problems with Loewen's arguments. I remember 1971 pretty well. By that time, many of the people who were going to oppose the war had come forward to be heard. His data from a contemporary Gallup poll shows a strong inverse relationship between level of education and opposition to the war, suggesting that the less educated you were, the more likely to oppose the war you were. If he would like to add the words "in American history," I might agree. In fact, what he is saying might serve as a round-about explanation for why I took no US history in college and fell in love with European history in my later years there. But, frankly, I can't believe that there was enough labor union sentiment against the war to explain the skewed curve. I remember Tip O'Neill thundering in Congress over this and that, mostly to no real effect. Could a poll of this sort, even though it was supposed to be anonymous, have come under the chill of the accession of Nixon two years before? Yes, the math and science geeks ('scuse me, those of you who maybe were one) wore the buttons with the bullseye that said, Bomb Hanoi. A picture that I saw of one of those tear gas incidents at Wisconsin in about 1968 showed me that it was no longer the folks who looked like hippies in the vanguard of the movement, but main line fraternity men, clean cut wearing nice neat sweaters. Few if any beards were in sight. In Santa Barbara, one of the young tenured faculty members from the History department led a large group of students in stopping traffic (including trucks) to protest the war. I think that was in about '68 or '69. I have yet to find any truck driver who doesn't say he would have cheerfully run them down. Same with hard hats. Folks who wear hardhats to work sometimes carry sticks; usually they're not excessively educated. Loewen seems aware of this movement but thinks it was just window dressing. I don't agree. Finally, I think he would have to admit that McNamara's book states that it was how the government prosecuted the war, not its overall purpose, that was flawed. To be honest, back in '62 I was not at all sure about it, because I assumed like many other people that this was another Korea. Another issue I think Loewen needs to address and seems to miss (avoid) is the uglier aspect of the anti-war movement when it became every bit as violent and even more insidious than the war itself. And that is even to discount altogether the bombing of the math building at Wisconsin. Probably some of you can recall a favorite instance of that.

My husband and I were unsure whether we were hawks or doves in 1969. We felt the war was useless and probably could not be won, but we supported our government to the extent that we wanted to believe the war was good and necessary.

Then we went to San Francisco for a long weekend. A planned trip out to North Beach found us held up by a huge anti-war demonstration.

These thousands of people were families, complete with strollers and baby buggies. They were college students and hippies. They were mostly fresh faced, decently dressed, All-American looking people. We spoke with many who were walking past us. We were impressed to the point that we Did begin to question what we had been told.

By 1972 we were Big Time Doves!

Initially I viewed our Viet Nam involvement as another necessary action to contain the Communist menace. It was like Korea in as much as the Korean action had been a success in stopping the North’s military aggression against the South. The South Korean republic had been preserved. The involvement in Viet Nam was necessary to prevent the domino collapse of nation after nation toward our shore.

I do not recall any serious contemporary expression of mass disapproval until about 1968 (Was that the year of the North Viet push that became known as the Tet offensive)? At that time a friend who I respected a great deal and who was an Air Force Lieutenant Colonel began to voice opposition. Soon it became obvious that the Nation was too bitterly divided to prosecute the war leading to the long stalemate and final defeat. Fortunately for us our enemy (international communism) was suffering from terminal disease resulting from its own imperfections and we emerged luckily well positioned in the post cold war world. May we always be so lucky!

Hi, everybody! Just stopped to poke my head in and stayed to comment. Am very, very far behind in the reading, but I hope to catch up soon.

In no particular order, these were the things that caught my attention this time:

U.S. aid to other countries, in particular under the Marshall plan: my high school students were surprised that there were valid (read: self-serving) reasons for the Marshall plan, and also for sending aid to South America. I in my turn was surprised at how many of them knew we sent foreign aid and knew that that was the purpose of the Marshall plan. Then they were surprised at how small a chunk of the budget that aid really is. I can't remember if I got any of that information from their textbook, though.

Failure of prohibition: Actually, the idea that Prohibition DID fail is coming under scrutiny. It worked; people did stop drinking. Students are also surprised to learn that drugs were being used in the 1920s in addition to alcohol. [The textbooks mention NOTHING about illegal drugs, for the most part, until the 1960s.] Anyway, the Volstead Act wasn't repealed because it didn't work but because it was unenforceable with the amount of money set aside by the government for that purpose.

Memorizing dates: Students in my classes have one date to memorize: July 4, 1776. I ask the question, "On what date was American independence declared?" on tests until everyone gets it right. So far, I have had to put the question on the test until the end of the year.

History books/textbooks are not fun: Probably the most fun my kids ever have reading the books is when I stop and tell them the things that are controversial as we read (reading as a class means everyone does the reading, including special ed students for whom the book is too difficult). They can just about chime in on the chorus: "Your book is wrong about this."

The WWI pension protestors: The books all cover that story. Sometimes the students really get into the discussion of the government firing on protestors.

Teaching patriotism: Usually in one of my first classes, we talk about what makes America great. The students call out suggestions and I write them on the board. Even seniors will participate in this exercise. No one ever says, "Because Columbus was a hero" or "slavery" or "Because we slaughtered the Indians." The kids say things like "democracy" and all the freedoms that go with it. From there, it's easy to discuss how these freedoms started out as the province of white men who owned property and have gradually been extended as time passed. I talk about how equality is still not universal; sometimes a student will bring up this point. And I tell them that in many ways U.S. history is the study of how different groups fought for freedom even within America. So, even though we are going to talk about how things have been and maybe still are not perfect in America, we have a basis of things that are good about America. This of course gives me an entree into American politics.

The Viet Nam War: I have taught the Viet Nam War but I have never felt that I did a good job at it. For one thing, my high school students were interested in drugs in the counter-culture and drug use in Viet Nam by soldiers. For another, I felt I was teaching a list of battles and dates and rushing rushing rushing to 1972. It's true that the kids don't know anything about the Viet Nam War: not why America entered, or why war was never declared, or what we might have hoped to accomplish. After last time I taught it, I decided that I might have to teach them in a more meaningful way about Communism and why Americans thought it was such a threat (which I do cover to an extent in the 1920s and the Red Scare). I do remember talking about that survey in a class in graduate school. It seems to me that we decided in class that the survey looked that way because the Viet Nam war was fought overwhelmingly by men who were less educated and poorer. I'm not explaining that very well: what I mean is that people without college deferments or a dad who could get you into the guard fought the Viet Nam war. So, people who were less educated and might actually have to go to Viet Nam were opposed to the war.

Lady C--I don't know what the books say about the Normandy landings. I'll have a look and get back to you.

Ellen M: The communist scare was furthered by McCarthy, J. Edgar Hoover and Nixon (and who knows who else in government, though I think Kissinger had a big role); the cold war was in full swing, and our government promoted our hatred of communism. I don't think most people had any idea as to what communism was, or is or how it is practiced in theory or reality. Stalin was a "friend" up until then,(remember the big three meeting at Yalta?) and the lid was on pretty tight re his tyrannical rule and the atrocities he committed. So most of us were ignorant and buying the governments version of Russia as a nuclear threat. Of course we were terrified of a nuclear war once Russia had "the bomb", but the government used that as another means of uniting the country concerning the fear of communism. We seem to have found different demons in the middle east now.

Brings to mind an incident when our boys were in high school... They were not allowed to wear t-shirts with the yellow smiley face, because the superintendent said it was a symbol of the Communist party.

Both boys had been assigned numbers for the draft during the VietNam "War".. Each had a passport (having been exchange students) and kept a suitcase packed in case their number was drawn. They had made arrangements to live with a family in Mexico. Not my decision... but I didn't discourage them.

Henry: In response to your #409:

I remember well how appalled I was at the tragic bombing at the University of Wisconsin, and it left me with a bad taste in my mouth about the SDS and other protest groups.

But on the other hand, I still retain two vivid memories of that era. One, a picture of a young girl placing a flower in the barrel of a National Guardsman’s rifle, and two, the horrifying picture of the Chicago police beating the young demonstrators outside the Democratic National Convention headquarters.

Does anyone else see two sides to this? There was also the injustice of young blacks, Latinos, blue collar workers, being drafted to go to a war in Southeast Asia, a war which their contemporaries avoided because they were enrolled in college.

Lorrie

Ellen: Thanks so much for your post about your students as that is our (or perhaps I should say my) only knowledge of what is going on in high schools today in regards to history classes, and is certainly pertinent to this book.

I noted two instances in your post of the students' interest in the drug culture. Is this because of the presence of drugs available to students today? Or how do you account for their interest in drugs? I've known of the use of drugs in the 1920's and have often wondered at their disappearance in the pre-war and war years - at least in the view of the historians. Perhaps it was the depression and the fact people could not longer afford them, or was it that they were being used but other societal issues took preeminence?

"Probably the most fun my kids ever have reading the books is when I stop and tell them the things that are controversial as we read"

It is obvious that you are an excellent teacher and one that Loewen would applaud!

As usual, my last post was far too wordy, so the question I intended to pose is buried in the verbiage. What I wondered was how you all reacted on reading pp. 297-305. He thinks the opposition to the war arose among, was spearheaded by, and was most strongly held by less educated people. And, soberingly, he has more than just one contemporary poll from about 1971, to support this conclusion. My views of '62 were completely reversed by '64. I even wrote to the president. I took part in many peaceful protests over the later '60's. Now, as I have suggested, there was a wing of the movement that found the true culprit of the war to be the university as we knew it. Fortunately, this part of the movement was so completely repudiated that we've forgotten about it. Do these pages in Loewen come as a surprise to you? Are you persuaded by his explanation?

Henry, from cool green, I don't find your posts too long at all. One thing I've been thinking about asking you and several others, though, please, please, is to break up longer posts with paragraphs. In other folders, when we've talked of how to do this, various methods are suggested. The one I use is to hit the "enter" (return) key twice at the end of a paragraph. Then the blinking cursor will jump down two lines, leaving a blank line in between paragraphs.

I've even noticed that some posters, like Ginny, type in very, very short paragraphs---so lots of space is left between separate thoughts. I find that very easy to read---and it probably makes important questions stand out. (But let me repeat---please don't shorten your posts. I like how you think.)

Anyway, I'm going back to the pages you referenced to read again about the author's statements on antiwar sentiment by the "uneducated."

I was an undergraduate in college in the late 60s but was socially and politically asleep. My own private "60s" came more than 20 years later. I even moved myself to Berkeley, CA, to finish off some graduate school. The echoes of the 60s are still there. During a visit from another 40s-something graduate school friend from out of state, I'm ashamed to report that we were thrilled to witness police in riot gear lined up to provide a perimeter for a gathering of angry students.

Hey, Americans, its a day to display your flag. Its Veteran's Day! Go watch the parade that most of us have that honors our many veterans. God-bless!!

Henry, I, for another do not think your posts are too wordy. I have enjoyed reading your comments all through this disussion. Please don't trim them or hold back in any way!

Lorrie

Ann, thank you for reminding us all what this day is. Too many of us tend to forget our Veterans.

Betty, so many thanks for your helpful tip. I may yet stop yearning for a still-working Royal upright. I've seen the day when I would welcome an old Underwood or even L. C. Smith (Elsie as Dad's was known to the family). Now let's try this paragraph thing.

As I was saying about the university thing: we often heard, as a criticism, that our teaching was "disinterested," or, my favorite, "irrelevant." I had rather hoped it would be disinterested, as opposed to being simply a vehicle for my favorite idea of the day. The basic notion behind the Artes Liberales was not that liberals would like what I said, but that the material studied was not tied to any specific professional interest, as one might find in professional school. I was quite aware of the fact that medieval universities were, in some cases, originally corporate entities of students, not of faculty members. But when I asked them if they'd like to agree to the same oaths their ancestors took--those of poverty and chastity--I got no takers. Strange.

As far as concerns the question: did more education or less tend one to reject the Vietnam venture as it unfolded in the early mid-60's, I find my principal (but certainly not sole) "persuaders" to have been a lecture and an article both received sometime in 1964. The lecture was by Wayne B. Morse, the only Senator to vote against the Tonkin Resolution (maybe there was one other); I think the article was by Hans Morgenthau in the New York Times magazine. You might, if you were not in college then, have come to the same conclusions by other means. I find it awfully hard to agree with Loewen in his interpretation of the polls. If many war opponents in '71 were not by the polls' definition college educated, could they have simply read the stories of the Kent State and Jackson State incidents in the papers the previous year and decided then?

As you can tell, Loewen really got me on this one!

Hollywood has done its share of misinforming people about historical events, also. In "Past Imperfect," our companion book, critics say that the way the films depicted Vietnam is widely varied, and hugely imaginative.

John Wayn's "Green Berets," for instance, was almost out and out propaganda, yet "Apocolypse Now" has become a classic, thanks to the sheer brilliance of three or four scenes. The same with "The Deer Hunter," "Platoon," and "Full Metal Jacket."

All these ambitious films fail to take the reality of Vietnam into account. The filmmakers put extravagant sources to work, and get almost nothing right. They all treat Vietnam (and the Vietnamese) in such a cliche'd way that I believe they will soon seem as dated as WWII ppropaganda films.

Lorrie

"Platoon," too, Lorrie?? I've heard a few veterans of the Vietnam war say that Platoon comes very close. Does the author of Past Imperfect write of Platoon by itself? I wonder if the author thinks that the drug culture portrayed was over done.

Betty, Most of the author's criticisms were directed to "Apocalypse Now" but then went on to say:

"Curiously enough, the other ambitious Hollywood films about Vietnam suffer from the same solipsism as "Apocalypse Now." There are no idiocyncratic characters, Life is missing, and so is an attention to landscape, to detail.

Oliver Stone's "Platoon" begins with an extraordinary, hyper-real evocation of jungle warfare, but then the film descends into facile myth-making--and at the same time departs from its particular landscape.

Because these ambitious films all fail to take the reality of Vietnam into account, they remind us of the war itself. To most Americans, including those in positions of authority, Vietnam was an abstraction--a symbol, not a place--and the American troops who went there suffered as a result..........Frances Fitzgerald, author "Fire in the Lake: The Vietnamese and the Americans in Vietnam"

Lorrie

I don't know. Like you, Betty, I've heard several veterans of that war state that "Platoon" was right on the money.

Like Pat Westerdale, I was taken aback when my son spoke of leaving the country during Vietnam. In fact, I offered to help him get to Canada if he is was drafted. When Vietnam was over, he enlisted, at 20, in the Air Force. So, did he believe in defending his country? just not in the Vietnam War? I don't know!

Lorrie - Thanks for the link to this discussion. Just about the time I think I have subscribed to everything in B&L, I find I haven't. This is like a large building with lots going on behind all the doors. Just a matter of opening the doors.

Judy S

Well, Judy! This is great, seeing you here! As you can tell, if you roll back and read some of the posts, we're haveing a great discussion here about this book! We have some very astute former and present history teachers, and it's illuminating to read what they have to say! Stay with us, the best is yet to come!

Lorrie

Lorrie - Thanks, I will. It does look interesting. I had mentioned Past Imperfect, in another folder some weeks ago. Non-fiction maybe? I see it referred to here. I have yet to read it. It sits in the "to read" pile.

Judy S

We're using "Past Imperfect" as a sort of companion piece to the main book here, to indicate how much Hollywood and film makers distorted the actual facts on some of their productions. the main focus of this discussion is what Loewen has written about the way American history has been taught in some schools.

Lorrie

Test yourself in the quiz, up in the heading here, it's an eye opener!

On discussing the war from his angle with him, a Marine who was there twice persuades me of a few conclusions:

1) None of the movies to date has succeeded in capsulizing "what it was like."

2) There were huge differences of opinion among the warriors themselves, before they began to reject it openly on return to the US.

3) More than that, there were differences in general attitude among different military groups (all of them our folks) of which we have no more than a hint, but over time, probably in fiction more than in historical writing, will come to light.

4) Drugs were huge there, as they were here. Some of those sent on commando missions were given "uppers" by our military in their own interests.

As far as when it ends is concerned, what's the chance of getting some new take on a phase of WW II on the TV tonite?

The more I read (including Kaiser's fine book), I'm inclined to think that the reason for the composition of anti-war sentiment in 1971 was a combination of public fatigue with it in our media and such 1970 highlights as the decision to invade Cambodia and its two major echoes here in the Kent State and Jackson State incidents. I forgot to mention Jackson State in my previous post and I'm surprised someone didn't blow the whistle on me. Unfortunately, Kaiser stops around 1969. So, events on campuses may have rolled back into the society and affected people quite profoundly, who were not college graduates themselves.

I'd like to suggest Loewen's Lies Across America for maybe a shorter discussion. Some of what's in it, especially our assumptions about the Indians, is well worth looking into.

Actually, I think the bottom line was that the majority of Americans were not inspired by horror at the thought of the Communist North Vietnamese taking over the Non-Communist, but corrupt, South Vietnamese. Frankly, My Dear, we did not give a damn! Hey, where is Viet Nam anyway and why does it affect ME? What did North Viet Nam ever do to us? These were the sentiments. Why should we DIE for this? Is the honor of The United States at stake? Really? Why?

MaryPage, you hit on a point here that I tried to raise for discussion way back on my posting #100. Loewen shows a good grasp of one aspect of the war's opposition we've largely forgotten, namely, the argument from isolationism. As an extreme illustration of politics making strange bedfellows, it gives one pause to suppose that, on the Vietnam War, extreme conservative Everett Dirksen was of the same views as wild-eyed radical Jerry Rubin. Back then, you might have opposed the war from just the concerns you raise: that it's a far away country that doesn't matter to us.

Some of what has tended to overshadow isolationism is the sheer growth in technology, that has come to bind far-flung areas of the world closer together. Maybe we can't be everything to everyone, but both sides of the political aisle seem to take an activist, if not interventionist, view of the world. And, contrary to what happened in the first half of the 20th century, it is the left more than the right that has become isolationist.

I'm surprised that Loewen didn't mention anything about the slave rebellion in South Carolina that had the white residents there in absolute terror. It's possible that he didn't because I understand all records were destroyed, or partially. It's a fascinating story about a freed slave, Denmark Vesey, who attempted to rouse his fellow blacks. Nine thousand of them.

"Denmark Vesey was a charasmatic ex-slave--literate, professional, and relatively well-off--who had purchased his own freedom with the winnings from a lottery. Inspired by the success of the revolutionary black republic in Haiti, he persuaded some nine thousand slaves to join him in a revolt. On a June evening in 1822, having gathered guns, and daggers, they were to converge on Charleston, South Carolina, take the city's arsenal, murder the populace, burn the city, and escape by ship to Haiti or Africa. When the uprising was betrayed, Vesey and seventy-seven of his followers were executed, the matter hushed by Charleston's elite for fear of further rebellion. Compelling, informative, and often disturbing, this book is essential to a fuller understanding of the struggle against slavery "..........

...From the introduction to the book Denmark Vesey--The Buried History of America's Largest Slave Rebellion.

Lorrie

Well, if textbooks are devised by the upper classes to manipulate youngsters to support the status quo, as Loewens seems to claim, they don't seem to be succeeding. No matter how you measure, history textbooks and courses do little to increase trust in the U. S. or induce good citizenship.

Voting, for example, is one form of citizenship that textbooks push, yet up to now voting in this country has been way down, especially among recent high school graduates. The whole learning process has left students feeling cynical, abandoned, and highly skeptical.

When I was old enough to cast my first vote in a presidential election, I was far from thrilled and filled with patriotic fervor. Instead, I felt imposed on, saddled with a cumbersome responsibility, a job to be done quickly then forgotten. I consider this all as a result of of the sheer boredom and lack of interest all through our history classes.

Lorrie

Lorrie:--I had the opposite reaction. I couldn't wait for my first vote at the age of 21. I was up early in the morning and one of the first in line.

Robby

Yes, Robby, that seems to fit. I have a feeling that you were a very idealistic young man, judging from some of your former remarks, and retained those ideals right up to and through service to your country during the war.

Believe me, this is wonderful, and it makes me feel ashamed to have such cynical thoughts about our present form of government. I still vote every chance I get, but it's usually in the sense of choosing the lesser of two evils.

Lorrie

Lorrie:--

To begin with, I don't believe that you are without ideals. You may be putting yourself down.

Secondly, I separate the term "government" from "country." I have often voted against the government in power but believed at the same time that I was doing that because I loved my country.

Robby

True. I sometimes tend to forget that there is a difference between "country" and "government." Yes, I love my country and would not want to live anywhere else, but I do deplore some of the blunders our government has made all through history, as Loewen relates here.

We're told that, to change our present form of government, we must use the power of our vote, but this is where I become cynical. To me it seems a waste of time, an exercise in futility, to try to change anything in view of the massive electoral campaign systems now in place.

Lorrie

Lorrie:--

We are discussing voting as an act of futility in "Democracy in America." I would appreciate your sharing your thoughts on this by clicking onto DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA

Robby

Robby, I felt exactly the same way you did when I first went to the polls to cast my vote!

Robby, your comment reminded me of our debate question in high school during the WWII years: "Should 18 year-old citizens have the right to vote?" Of course, the affirmative side of the debate said - if they have dying for our country they certainly should be voting for our government, etc., etc. I had forgotten that.

Lorrie - I don't think the author's purpose in writing this book was to necessarily point out the blunders our country has made over the years, but to contemplate what the authors of history textbooks have left out; thereby giving our students no interest in history, no emotion about history, no "voice" in history. Sadly, it is a boring subject to them as the textbooks are told in narrative style, with little chance for debate.

Perhaps, also, he is hoping that teachers of history will read his book and use examples he has given to create another view in the minds of students.

As we wind up this discussion, could we all give opinions as to what the author is hoping to achieve by writing this book?

Ella:--The negative side of that debate said that you needed more brains to choose a President than to go out and get killed.

Robby

In reply to the question, what did Loewen attempt to do with his book, I would say the following:

There were dual purposes, which explain the chronological jumps in it that many of you have commented upon. Topically, we have racism, nationalism, Eurocentrism, and various other of the mental shortcuts that Americans of European descent have fallen heir (and victim) to. He does begin at the chronological beginning. But since his primary purpose was to address specific points on which history texts cover up, window-dress, and otherwise avoid telling the unvarnished truth, he tends to skip all over the landscape.

My only point of astonishment is that a book very like this should not have been written about in the late '60's. At that time, however, the older outlook held such sway that any really telling points like the ones Loewen makes were suppressed by whatever means. If you were untenured and thought to have any such capabilities, might as well make sure your train ticket was ready. This book would have been written by someone ten years earlier, at the very least, had it not been for the academic retrenchment of the '70's.

While I don't agree with Loewen on every point--for example, I saw no proof that the Plague occasioned the sailing of the Mayflower specifically to Plymouth--he forces us to think just about exactly the way the best of my mentors in Ancient History taught me to think. Do I think it healthier for our teens to leave school with a nearly inchoate fund of questions about their country's history instead of a body of doctrine? Certainly. The more they know about the problems and the more experience they have with tinkering with them, the more successful they'll be.

I enjoyed reading everyone's comments. I think you certainly can take exception to some of the axes Loewen feels obliged to grind. Any historian of the US who reads his book wishes he'd written it, and I would think the less of any who does not so wish.

There are two kinds of US historians: those who have read Loewen and those who are unreconstructed.

I agree with Ella's comment in Message 441 that the author’s purpose in writing the book was not necessarily to call attention to our countries blunders, but I think his message goes much deeper. By analyzing how the principal high school history texts present the history of the country in the most favorable light, picking and choosing events to be emphasizing, and neglecting mention of others selected events their purpose is to create the impression of continuing national progress. History is molded to create the impression that life for each generation will be better than the predecessor when in fact there may be recent historical interpretations that would lead to the opposite conclusion.

Loewen gives examples of how the standard interpretation of our national history leads to the idea of an “American Exceptionalism.” We become a “chosen people” with an indomitable sprit that will overcome all future problems no matter how serious and difficult just as our ancestors overcame the problems of their day. But this may not be the case as it leads to what may be an unfortunate adherence to traditional policies regarding some of the major manifestations of “progress” such as economic growth. If there is one thing that politician of the two major political parties agree upon it is the idea that the solution to all problems lie in the continuation of growth. This has led to ignoring the obvious fact that somewhere limits exist in the form of limited resources and ecological considerations. Mounting evidence suggests that these limits will appear within the life time of today’s students. Yet they are being ignored and in fact compounded by current policy.

Loewen cites the creation of this optimistic outlook as the reason for student almost universal disinterest in history. Quoting Loewen on page 269, “These students had all taken American history courses, but the textbooks regimen of good cheer does not seem to have rubbed off on them. Students know when they are being conned.”

That last post of Henry's #443, is very interesting, especially the part about why he thinks this book wasn't written sooner. Academic retrenchment, being untenured, all different things were reason enough for any historian to pause before considering writing such a book.

However, I certainly like Henry's quote:

"Any historian of the US who reads this book wishes he'd written it, and I would think the less of any who does not so wish.

There are two kinds of US historians: those who have read Loewen and those who are unreconstructed." Well said, Henry!

Lorrie

On book TV yesterday one of the speakers warned against America believing it is "superior" to other nations; he pointed out that all great nations/governments in history, e.g. the Romans, the Greeks, the British Empire, etc., have in time weakened and dissolved and thus it will be for our nation. He also thinks that these small "moral" wars are damaging and should not be undertaken - only those wars in which our national interests are threatened should we become involved. He (I wish I could remember his name) discussed the stunningly successful Persian Gulf War which may lead America to believe that all wars can be fought so quickly, but it is our duty and responsibility to teach students the horror of wars such as WWI and WWII. Amen.

Perhaps it was Ted Koppel who made these statements as he has a new book out entitled "Private Thoughts Made Public," and I listened to some of his remarks in answer to questions from the audience at the Miami Book Fair.

Has anyone read this book? Would it be a good one to be discussed after the holidays? Any thoughts?

I loved Henry's and Harold's posts, just loved them, this is a very good discussion and one we will be proud to add to our Archives when it is completed.

I am back from the beach with a hernia due to carrying a separate suitcase with all Henry's suggestions, hahaha boy is he right, when he's right, he's RIGHT!

I'm past the one toe stirrup and moving on towards the plow, it's pitiful to be my age and not have known this stuff but, I always say, better late than never, we can learn at any age.

Where are the rest of you who were lagging a bit, have you caught up? I do so enjoy the posts here.

Henry had suggested the Lies Across America and somebody somewhere else suggested the new Ambrose about the Transcontinental Train, and now Ella has a new one: they might make a great series, I am ignorant of good books on history and so I need to fall in behind you all, but this is a great core group and maybe we could get a series going, if you all are interested, I will read whatever!!!

Meanwhile, back to the development of the deep plow!!

ginny

Ginny, I'm convinced it is age itself that opens our awareness to what we don't yet know.

That's my excuse, anyway.

Subject: The impact of the Loewen book, chalk-up another hit!

This afternoon was my weekly watch at the local National Historic Park. One family visiting the Espada site included a sophomore student at a local high school. I had finished my usual pitch. This particular boy had asked a question and after I answered, I asked a question. “Have you ever heard of a book entitled, “lies My Teacher Told Me.” “Oh yes,” he quickly answered, “that’s the book that my teacher talks about.” I was impressed, It does seem that some of Loewen’s message has reached at least one South Texas high school classroom.

Oh, good, Harold, I'm glad to know that teachers are using it as a supplement to the textbooks.

I reserved Ted Koppel's book "Private Thoughts Made Public" and will give you my opinion of it after I receive it and have read a few chapters. How old do you think he is? Of course, he's seen more "public" than I have, but I bet I have as many private thoughts and others on Seniornet will have also - we should get a book together of private thoughts made public on Seniornet.

Gee, Ella, chuckle, chuckle, chuckle, whatever can you mean "our private thoughts made public on SeniorNet." You guys know more than my therapist does.

Betty, you mean YOU aren't your therapist? Shoot, that's not a very good advertisement for you!

Betty, if Ted Koppel can write his private thoughts in a book we can certainly post our private thoughts to friends here in the Books, wouldn't you agree? As a matter of fact, many of us have already done so, I'm thinking of those who posted in the Greatest Generation discussion.

I think it's a marvelous idea! Some of the witticisms I read here are a lot more honest and to the point than what comes out of Washington these days.

Lorrie Harold, it's encouraging to know that some of the students today are getting access to this book of Loewen's. I think I'll ask some of my nieces and nephews who are in high school if they have heard of it.

MaryPage, I know you were just kidding, but it made me remember that in rare instances with a few difficult to reach patients, a moment would come for me to say, "A few years ago, my therapist said to me......" Sometimes that would finally open the door. Some people in pain can't quite believe that anyone else has ever known pain, so they hold off trusting.

Besides, (chin in air), all ye unbelievers, seeking a therapist is an act of courage. So there. (Myths aren't reserved just for history books.)

------------------------------

Sorry for a quasi-serious answer. You really made me laugh, MaryPage. I've almost decided that laughing, above all else, is about the best therapy around. The whole body benefits immediately and aren't there studies that show long term benefits as well? Immune system, etc. Anyway, thanks for making me laugh.

Of course I was having you on, Betty; just could not resist. Sometimes the remarks of others are as irresistably tempting to me as a roast beef would be to a Great Dane puppy.

But you are right on about humor, and I seriously agree. If you are in a bad mood, and you MAKE yourself smile and hold the smile, the muscles in your fact signal the brain and you begin to feel better. Try it. It works!

I can't believe you wrote that about the smile, MaryPage. I had thought about writing just that, but left it out. (I can get awfully preachy and attempt, mostly unsuccessfully, I might add, to monitor myself.) The determined smile is what I call it---your brain cannot ignore it, cannot compute the blahs with a smile. Humming or singing does the same thing. Burst out in song and your brain goes haywire---oh, my goodness, it must say, I think we're cheering up!!!

(oops, a preachy thing is coming on...) Practicing being assertive (even when you don't feel like it or are frightened of it) acts on the brain in the same way. Wow, the brain says, just listen to me!!!

Ha! We could be Each Other's shrinks, Betty.

Except I lack the degrees and the licenses.

Tell you what; just don't tell!

p.s. I like that. The Determined Smile. Like it a lot. Good on you!

Well you ladies I have been using that determined smile for ages. It does work and I have a list of things I tell people to do to get over the blue blaahs and that one tops the list. I have no license but have been practicing with a subscription to a prescription. What I call Readers Digest Psycology. It started with a Dale Carnagie course my husband took once to increase his business ability. I remember one of the things he learned was the sincere smile which being forced on at first does become genuine as you mingle in a business crowd. That is just proof that the smile is working on your emotions.

That's certainly what Norman Cousins said. Laughter can even be a curative.

I'd like to toss out another suggestion for a book to discuss. The one I have in mind is Crane Brinton's "Anatomy of Revolution." The reason this book got published was that it fell between the McCarthy furor and the huge Thermidorean reaction of the '70's to which I have already alluded. It came out in the middle '60's.

Before you say one way or another, I would suggest looking at reviews of the book conveniently available at amazon.com. It baffled some people, so we know it has some meat to it. Yet one reviewer was struck by the parallels to everyday life. I can assure you that the terminology in it, though it may be strange to you at first, was most of it already stock-in-trade for historians long before it was published. The first assumption Brinton sweeps aside rather early is that revolutions happen when conditions are terrible.

I don't believe that our prosperity is what assures it, but I do consider contemporary US virtually immune from a full fledged revolution. I also consider this country always in a swing one way or the other, and the overall trends sometimes match up in surprising ways with those that have attended upon revolutions or their aftermaths.

Check it out and see what you think. I certainly would not object to a book by Ted Koppel, either instead or in addition to Brinton.

Henry: I have taken the liberty of posting your suggestion not only in our Non-Fiction section, but also in the Suggestion box for others to peruse and look into. Sounds like an interesting book---I urge you all to check it out, as Henry has advised.

Lorrie

I couldn't find any reference to it in Loewen's book or in "Past Imperfect" but I think we should mention here the appalling coverage that was given to the Veterans Bonus March, in 1932, when a group of World War I veterans marched on Washington to demand their promised bonus for participating in that big war.

History books, when they do mention it, tell of a "raggedy group of disgruntled war veterans" of "a mob scene," but few history books state the indisputable fact that General Douglas MacArthur, then Chief of Staff under President Hoover, actually opened fire on these men.

My father, himself a veteran of that war, listened in horror as the radio told the news, and forever after held a lifelong animosity toward MacArthur.

As an assignment for a writing class, I once wrote an account of that day:

JULY MADNESS

They came from everywhere. Sunburned wheat farmers from Nebraska and Kansas, burly loggers from the upper Midwest, textile workers from the mills of Vermont, pasty-faced clerks from offices all over the country, and desperate unemployed salesmen who had been roaming the roads seeking customers to buy merchandise that no one could afford.

They were 15,000 strong; all of them veterans of the recent “War to End All Wars,” and they were marching on Washington to demand what had been promised them in 1924. It was now 1932, and the city baked in the hot July sun, so they built lean-to’s and shanties near the Washington Monument, and bombarded their legislators daily with speeches and flag waving.

“The Bonus Expeditionary Force” they called themselves, and they were led by a much- decorated former Army lieutenant named Walter W. Walters. Patriotism permeated the air, and the hot summer night breezes carried the sounds of thousands of male voices singing “Over There”, “There’s a Long, Long Trail A-winding,” and the ever-haunting “My Buddy.”.

My father listened to the radio reports carefully. Although he wasn’t in Washington with them, he felt a kinship to those hapless men. It wasn’t that long ago that he’d fought the same war in France, where many of his friends remained, in white-crossed graves in Flanders Field. He, too, wondered why they hadn’t been given the recognition that they’d been promised.

They waited patiently for their Congressmen to tell them that yes, their bonus would .be paid now, rather than in 1945, as originally planned. They needed the money now. Unemployment was rampant–the Depression in full force.

Critics called them “dirty Reds,” but their leader, Waters, kept order with almost military discipline, and expelled the few Communist agitators.

And Congress did act, defeating the bill near the end of July. Most of the veterans went home, but many of them stayed on, until there were only 2000 men remaining, The Washington police tried to keep order, and were mostly successful, but they were only 800 against a mass of 2000 disgruntled ex-servicemen, many of them resentful and bitter.

President Hoover finally became restless at the sight of these makeshift camps, and on July 28 he ordered the “Bonus Army” to be expelled. Under the command of General Douglas MacArthur, then the U. S. Army Chief of Staff, troops were ordered to drive these men from their wretched hovels. Leading a massed force of four troops of cavalry, and four companies of infantry supported by tanks, MacArthur assaulted the shacks, burning the entire settlement. Wielding sabers and throwing tear-gas, in a manner later described by witnesses as “being just short of barbaric,” they drove the veterans out.

MacArthur later defended his actions, claiming that “he’d felt revolution in the air,” and was “forced to use violence,” but his aide at the time, Major Dwight D. Eisenhower, described the scene as “ a pitiful affair that never should have happened.”

Little was written in later years about the events of that day, although the radio and newspapers gave it full play when it happened. Fortunately, only four men were killed, but many others were injured, and the cries of those injured could be heard for hours. It was said later that many of the troops were sickened by the orders they had been given.

What bitterness and betrayal those men must have felt, being driven away by the hooves of horses manned by soldiers with whom only recently they had shared a trench, or swapped homesick tales on quiet nights near “No Man’s Land.” Will we ever really know the disillusionment that must have set in?

My father knew. As we listened to the evening news, even I could sense his anguish. Although I was only a child, I remember the wonder I felt at seeing a grown man cry.

Years later, when a much-decorated General Douglas MacArthur made his triumphant return, and accolades were pouring his way, my father and I watched the ceremonies on television. When I turned to see how my father, sitting in stony silence, would react, I was struck by the look on his face. It was an expression of utter contempt.

Lorrie

Lorrie my uncle Arthur Stuart marched in that "raggedy band" in Washington DC. He was ill from Mustard gas in France and died at Mare Island in the middle thirties. Actually lived quite a long time despite his disabilities. His accounts of those days tally with your writtings.Faith

HI everyone: Even though the :Lies: discussion is over and I was unable to participate you are Now talking about something I do know about.

Lorrie: Your account of that unfortunate march is entirely true. At the time it took place I was preparing for my freshman year of college and remember it vividly. I remember the outrage and the anguish we felt. And I remember well the loathing for McArthur that I felt that I never lost. He was an arrogant. opionated egomaniac and I was hapy when Truman fired him and was pleased when he assured us that he, as al old soldiers, would just fade away.

In that march there were, in addition to the needy veterans, business owners, professionals and others, all veterans who felt the desperation of the others.

After the final rout of the men the entire area was burned to the ground. It was an ugly time in our history.

See you all later,take care, Mary

Thank you, Faith P. and Mary W. It's reassuring to know that my father wasn't alone in his dislike for this man.

Lorrie

Regarding the recent thread concerning the 1932 Veterans Bonus march in Washington, DC, it is an event that has largely escaped my study. I was just 5 years old when it occurred and true to form in high school and college American History classes we just never quite got much beyond the Spanish-American War. Also I don’t think my family was much effected by the first War as my father was 4-f. (I don’t know why, but whatever did not affect his longevity as he lived quite healthy until 1986 into his 91 year). The depression affected the immediate family more as his railroad company employer moved my father to Houston, a move he detested. I had become aware of the bonus march, but as to the details, I am learning about it from your posts here.

I am not surprised about the role of MacArthur. It is right in the character he maintained during the WW II period as exemplified by the staged “I have returned” photographs picturing him and his senior staff hitting the beach after the Philippine beachhead was secure. Today I don’t think a Chief of Staff would take such an active of role as MacArthur did in 1932 in an event of this type. Recent marches such as the “Million Man March” a few years ago were rather well handled by the civilian police.

I had one near encounter with the General in late 1946 just after the war ended. I was an electrician at the Commander of the Mariana’s headquarters on Guam. I was duty electrician one evening when I was called to put a light in a closet at a VIP guesthouse maintained for visiting and pass-through VIP”S. Though MacArthur was just passing through for the night he had asked for the closet light. I found his uniforms were neatly hung in the closed and his assorted scrambled egg hats laid out on a shelf. I installed a conventional 60-Watt light and left without seeing the General.

Of course McArthur dearly wanted to be President. The facts were that despite the initial WW II popularity arising from his Philippine command, the public never viewed him with great favor. Perhaps they remembered his 1932 role in the bonus march incident. But he was no politician. He was much too cold, too much of an aristocrat for Americans. In competition with Ike, he didn’t have a chance.

Today in San Antonio MacArthur is probably better remembered than in most parts of the country. The principal parade grounds at Fort Sam Houston are named for the General’s father, a Civil War and Post Civil War officer who became a Major General. There is also a local high school that bears the General’s name.

Harold has hit on a big difference between 2 generals.

MacArthur had a Napoleon complex, Big Time.

Ike had a grin that could melt iron.

Both led men who were there to die for their country.

Guess which one led men who would die for HIM?

Hasn't this been a wonderful discussion? I don't know when I enjoyed reading a non-fiction book along with other readers more! Your comments, Henry and Harold, have been invaluable, and I have enjoyed reading the opinions of all you other posters.

I don't know about the rest of you, but from here on I will be reading about historical events of our country with a much more skeptical eye. We can only hope that history teachers in the future will at least try to make their subject less boring for their students.

Lorrie

Thanks to all of our participants. As one of the discussion leaders I am ever so grateful for all who take the time to think about a book and give us their opinion of the author and his statements and also comment on others in the group as if we are sitting at a round table and agreeing and disagreeing about this chapter and that fact. It has been a pleasure to be with you and I hope to see all of you in other discussions in the near future.

Ted Koppel's book is in the form of diary entries of 2 or 4 paragraphs in length and, therefore, would not be a good one to discuss - I was disappointed as I like this commentator. He has written others and I'll take a look at them after the holidays are over.

I've very much enjoyed this discussion and the ideas and the knowledge I got out of the comments here were as good as the book, in some cases better. Do we want to think about another history selection, either the Lies Across America, or Henry's Revolutionary book nomination or maybe the new Ambrose about the building of the transcontinental railroad.

I think this was an exceptional discussion and want to thank everybody who participated.

ginny

I am in the last part of Nothing like it in the World by Stephen Ambrose. I am glad that I am reading this as it is much more interesting than any other transcontinental railroad story I have read. I for one would like to see a discussion of this book. fp

I didn't really appreciate history when I was in school. But lately some reading I am now doing involves some of the prophecies of the Bible and how history relates to them. It is most fascinating and really makes everything come alive. I would love to see maps made like the used to make the human anatomy illustrations. Sort of as an overlay. Ancient historical maps and modern historical maps on top of one another.

As a final thought concluding the discussion of the Loewen book, this post concerns the reasons of the persistence of the erroneous interpretations of events in high school American history textbooks. When preliminary discussion of this book was first had last summer in the History Forum, before I had read the book and based on my observation in Texas, I took the position that local school boards were largely responsible. Going back to the year one (the 1940’s and I’m sure for a long time before) these local bodies have been extremely watchful lest their idea of unpopular political or social principals were circulated from the public school classroom. Early on they were most concerned with the teaching of evolution. When I was in high school in the early 1940, the word was scarcely ever mumbled. Later the enemy was sex and sex education in the schools. Loewen in his book too has identified local school authorities as a principal cause of unwarranted and unsupported “nationalistic optimism in high school American History textbook:

E.J. Mishan has suggested that feeding students rosy tales of automatic progress helps keep them passive, for it presents the future as a process over which they have no control. I don’t believe this is why textbooks end as they do, however. Their upbeat endings may best be understood as a ploy by publishers who hope that nationalistic optimism will get their books adopted. (page 270)

The culprit is not the authors or the publishers. These parties are simply providing a product that will sell. It is a buyer’s choice and the publisher provides the product in response to the demand. The negative impact of the persistence of this tune has been the un-popularity of history as a subject in the minds of students. As Loewen said on page 269, “students know when they are being conned.” This is unfortunate because for the great majority they will take no additional history courses after high school leaving them ill equipped in applying the experiences of the past to their concept of the future.

On the plus side, I think the indications posted here by myself and others indicate that the problem is not continued on the college level where a much more rigorous interpretation is the rule. I also see signs that the Loewen book has made some impact in educational circles. In this regard, we might hope it will have a positive impact on the future teaching of American history in high schools.