How is it even LEGAL for history textbooks to be inaccurate?

Answer 1

When I went to college I was SHOCKED at the difference in American history between high school and college, the 'facts', the things that are important, the way it was taught.

I came to realize that high school history is not really -history-, it is meant to be more of an indoctrination in patriotism, in the 'mythology' of our country. When high school teachers begin to teach the negative side of American history, parents come down on them like a ton of bricks. They don't -want- their kids to learn real facts, they want them to grow up loving their country. In college it's different. The purpose of history there is not to impose values like nationalism on students but to teach them the real facts.

I read about something that happened in grade-school history education many years ago. The man who wrote the best-accepted, most popular biography of George Washington, Mason Weems, had included the story of Washington and the cherry tree. He came out years later to admit that the story was not true, he'd just made it up. Publishers of history textbooks moved to remove the story from their textbooks, and they were met with opposition from 'conservatives' who believed that children should be taught that story even if it isn't true, because Washington was nearly a legendary figure. This was in the 1830s! As you can see, the story is still with us.

Answer 2

First you have to prove that the history textbooks are inaccurate. That might be more difficult than you think. People thought things were true until proven wrong before. You could be challenging someone who has more knowledge than you so you need to make sure you are right. besides how do you know that the history books are not right, were you there? Most likely not. besides there have been several times in history where textbooks have been altered because the person or persons wanted to shape things to their benefit. and yes it is most certainly happening today. Too many people want power and to get power you have to deceive others. As far as legal, laws can be changed. If you are expecting things to be always right, you are in for a shock.

Answer 3

There is a good phrase out there about 'history' ... that it is written by the WINNERS ... and since history is about 'truth' more than about 'fact' it CAN BE and SHOULD BE 'inaccurate' at best. Although it may seem 'silly' to you, think about how 'dry' this world would be if ONLY FACTS could be written into books or onto the Internet ... this world is about 'opinions' and 'sociology' where the 'society' and the beliefs of 'society' are primary but not ALL there is in this world ... so be THANKFUL that your history textbooks are innacurate ... and if the 'innacuracies' BOTHER you then you have the RIGHT to WRITE a NEW AND MORE ACCURATE textbook to 'correct' those innacuracies ... unless you want to 'leave that' to someone else and MAKE HISTORY of your own.

Answer 4

I have never heard of a law that provides punishment for inaccurate text books. So, I would say that it is legal for a history textbook to be inaccurate. It is really frowned upon and hopefully corrected.

Ah Taelec, you do have a point. The depiction of the history of the Alamo and its infamous battle in Texas textbooks does not depict what history actually has to say about the battle. The actual witnesses to the battle said that many things were different. Not all of the people died in the battle. Some surrendered, including Davy Crockett. They were executed.

Answer 5

American history book... I thought it would be more a leaflet than a textbook. Now English history that would require a textbook. Lets face it the people who get rich from Heroin and Cocaine are rubbing shoulders in the country clubs with the oil barons, bankers and corrupt politiicans that pull strigns for them. So what are we going to do about it..? Nothing because we all think as individuals some will whine others will say yeah man your right.. In the end the outcome for all is the same. We will go out make money pay taxes and buy junk.

Answer 6

Legality does not even enter the question. Which history textbooks are inaccurate? Only the ones that disagree with your faith? Religions are a part of history, but they are not history itself.

Answer 7

How do you make sure they aren't? Remember, the winners write the history books. The American Civil War was fought to preserve the union, free the slaves, and establish the sovereignty of the federal government over the states, according to the north. To the south, it was an invasion of a bloody-minded, domineering army bent on destroying their way of life. Which version did you learn as a kid?

Also keep in mind that lots of facts about any historical event either get lost as time goes by, or covered up, or deliberately distorted. Finally, history books are deliberately simplified to make them usable. If you were presented with every single detail about an event, it would take 3-4 times as long to read about it as when it actually took place.

Answer 8

I guess because no law has been passed against it...I mean, as others have said, victors write the history books. It's always a little biased, what can you do?

I am in AP U.S. History and our textbook has a blatant inaccuracy. It says that Henry David Thoreau actually lived in this place for two years while writing his "memoir" which was about his time there. But it's known that he did not actually live there the entire time or for as long as he said he did. Great accuracy there! I don't know why they'd do that, but that's just one example...

Answer 9

Free speech. At least in the United States it's not only legal to print inaccurate textbooks, it would be unconstitutional to make a law banning them.

Answer 10

there is often considerable room for 'interpretation' in history, and often a preferred version which is wildly unlikely (though just possible) will be presented instead of a less liked more probable understanding.

everyone knows that king richard iii of england was a humpback - because they have seen the shakespeare play (or some derivative of it). there is some evidence that richard had some kind of physical deformity, but there is also strong evidence that he was an admired dancer and a very successful ladies' man.

richard was certainly not ugly and equally certainly did not walk with a pronounced limp.

but the story is clear and popular, so people prefer it to the hazier and more problematic facts.