Where are the history books wrong?

Question

My wife has an essay to write where she has to give examples of where history books offer a biased or inaccurate version of history. I'm thinking something along the lines of:

- Abe Lincoln was a great, honorable pres (when there are examples where he was anything but)
- Our soldiers fight fair, and for freedom (when sometimes they too commit horrible acts)
- How the US obtained Texas, California, other Mexican territories, etc.

Any other examples of where the textbooks got it wrong?

Susan G - What are some examples of misinformation regarding those?

Answer 1

One of the ways of falsifying history is the total omission of the role (or even the existence) of gay people.

Answer 2

I would look at the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Holocaust, the Irish Potato famine, the American Civil War and the rise and fall of the Soviet Union for examples of bias in history texts.

The bias in American History books is towards the Americans or the non-Communists during the Cuban missile crisis. They don't talk about how the average Soviet person perceived the situation or the reason why the Soviets and the Cubans acted as they did.

Our recollection of Hitler's regime and the holocaust center around the atrocities and horrors. The fact that he helped pull the Germans out of a depression and did many good things for their economy and infrastructure is not mentioned in most history texts. Nor do the texts talk about why the Germans followed him so easily - they say he was charismatic but they don't always say why the charisma worked.

The Irish potato famine is often glossed over in our world history books and I truly consider it to be an attempted genocide of the Irish. The bias is inevitably toward the English and it also seems to leave out how truly horrible that situation was.

Inevitably when I read about the Civil War in text books I notice that the Southerners are frequently portrayed as ignorant red necks who all own slaves. The Northerners are then portrayed as righteous and educated people who believe in freedom. I find this sort of portrayal to be inaccurate and biased towards our modern ideas. Honestly, the practice of slavery allowed the huge farms and plantations that helped the economy of the new nation and helped feed all its peoples. There were also indentured servants who were basically slaves until their debts were paid off and there are even records of black people who owned their own slaves. The American Civil War is a sensitive subject to this day and each historian seems to have some bias and many perpetuate inaccuracies in the name of political correctness.

The rise and fall of the Soviet Union as depicted in our history texts is always on the side of the USSR being evil and the US and Western Europe as being good. I would have loved to learn more about their system of government and how their version of communism came to be. I see this topic as an area where old biases and the Cold War mentality still play out in our texts today.

Answer 3

History is written by the victors. Where there are errors it's usually intentional. Examples of errors:

1. The United States was taken by surprise at Pearl Harbor (we not only knew something was going to happen, but we had plenty of signs that Pearl Harbor was a serious potential target).

2. The US was neutral in WWII prior to Pearl Harbor (hardly!)

3. "Students" assasinated Franz Ferdinand. "Students" is a code word for dissidents in the early 1900s.

4. Louis Riel was vilified in the 1800s. Now 150 years later he's considered one of the greatest heroes of Canada. Did the facts change or has our understanding of the situation changed?

5. Historical accuracy is very finnicky where the Catholic Church is concerned. Your wife could actually do her entire essay on the clear differences and lack of accord between textbooks where the RCC is done. They're considered saints and villains in the same situation depending on who wrote the texts (especially about France, Spain and Mexico).

6. Several texts are being rewritten to portray a new version of the history of the civil rights movement. The difficulty is that the facts haven't changed, but the interpretation of the facts is heavily biased, especially where Southern caucasians are concerned. They're being painted with a broad brush to make it a purely white v black mentality. But the truth is quite different. Unfortunately, it's a PC mentality trying to create revisionist history.

Answer 4

Dough, Dough

You have some pretty good examples on your list, but you only touch the tip of the iceberg. I think that the thesis of your wife's essay is that history is written by the conquerors or by an uncontrolled ivory tower elite of academics and bueaucrats that favors an Establishment (political, economic and social).

the Abe Lincoln is a good choice, but since the North wwon the war, we only know how they want us to know the conflict, even if its PC or distorted. So I would add the causes of the war into this list, the Reconstruction Era and the Northern military occupation, etc. There are plent of examples and sources out there.

The War Crimes choice is also good, but you might also want to add the "excuses" for the wars the political elite of the USA have gotten us into (hmmmm -- Mexican War, World War I, Spanish American War, World War II, the War against the Confederate States of America, Vietnam War, Gulf War I, Afghanistan, Gulf War II. Well, it goes on.

I would like to add the Crusades. THe Muslims have no exact name for it, and in the anals of their historical records, it's was almost a non-event, until Muslim scholars gave it importance when they began facing Western Imperialism during the XIX onward . But secular, non-Catholic (and Catholic dupes who go along with it) academics inn their PC mania are imposing a materialistic, secular interpretation to them. She can build on that.

There is the French Revolution. It wasn't a crusade at all once you do the research -- reform a system is one thing, to destroy an establishment from i'ts roots with something unheard of and untried EVER in human history is another. The Vende revolt and the Reign of Terror reflect this culture war at it's height.

The Holocaust revisionist movement has caused quite a stir, but if we want the truth we have to go against the grain at times, and this is no exception.

Then there, in Catholic circles, Vatican Council II, and how it made the Catholic Church better. Reading the pedophilia scandals, gay influx into the priesthood, the Church's liberalization even in liturgy and a new rite of Mass that has led to a decrease in attendance, and a split within the Church -- Traditionalists who oppose VC II reforms or its excesses, and the Establishment. Who has the last say? She should research on that historical event and afterward.

It goes on, and I haven't touched on non-Western topics. But I think she should state her thesis, give examples, how and why, and gor from there.

Answer 5

You might want to peruse 'older' published history books. Examine history books published in the 1940s, 50s, and 60s, because they were published before the freedom of information act allowed a lot of previously unaccessible classified information to be available to historians and other authors. Such as Martin Luther King's plagiarism.

Also, there is a huge battle today in 2007 on exactly what is included in a contemporary book of history. For example, what is world history compared to American & European history? How is the Israeli attack on the USS LIBERTY handled and how much information is released on Martin Luther King's plagiarism. Was the civil war fought over slavery or, as taught in England, over financial or State's rights? Were the New York City draft riots of 1864 a riot or just a protest?

Answer 6

i don't understand approximately web site ninety 3 yet you do understand maximum pupils agree Mohammed is considered specially else between the main suitable militia leaders and tacticians in history? How do you think of ideology is unfold? you particularly think of Catholicism unfold throughout the time of Europe because of the fact the Pagans all stated yea that sound reliable? Or that The Soviet Union and the folk's Republic of China replaced into shaped devoid of any bloodshed? you think of united statesa. accelerated because of the fact the Natives desperate it replaced into all reliable for American Europeans and only enable them to? Or do you think of the the natives have been asked nicely to pass alongside? not offending or incorrect this is only history perhaps not one a cleric, zealot or ignorant person might prescribe to yet that took place and can cutting-edge in the two the Koran and secular texts

Answer 7

In line with Abe, most books paint George Washington as a paragon of virtue, when in reality he was quite the womanizer.
A lot of history books gloss over or trivialize the Spanish American war, when in fact it was possibly the bloodiest event in Filipino history (just an event for the soliders fight fair and for freedom).
You might want to flip through a copy of Lies My Teacher Told Me by James Loewen, he goes into events that are not taught or partrayed differently than they occurred.

Answer 8

Depends on the history book, of course. But take WWII, for example. Was it really won mostly by the American forces? American history books tend to downplay the role that Russia had in winning that conflict, which might have been greater than America's.

Answer 9

That is a terrible assignment!! When are we as a nation going to begin to look at and stress our strengths rather than consistently beating our breasts as though all we have ever done has been wrong. Ask the Germans and Japanese how great we are since we rebuilt both countries AFTER defeating them in war.

Chow!!

Answer 10

The best quotes I have ever heard basically say the winners write the history books.
Meaning they would all be a little biased...

But mention how Japan doesn't teach their students their full involvement in WWII and the terrible things they did (i.e. Rape of Manking, ect.)...