1. Handicapped by History: The Process of Hero-making
 What is “heroification”? (p. 11) The process by which fascinating, controversial people are gradually transformed into boring one-dimensional figures in history textbooks. 

What are the three taboos in textbook publishing, according to Loewen? (p. 27) The three taboos that can exist in textbooks: #1 is omit and distort the truth that is written. #2 is not speaking technically when revealing information. #3 one of the gravest is lying.

In regard to Loewen’s diagnosis of some omitted historical truths surrounding Columbus, textbooks appear hesitant to acknowledge that Columbus wasn’t the first European to sail to America (which is the traditional story in all history books). Loewen believes by doing so builds a less “glorified” narrative of European history. Loewen points out in his book that there is evidence that African explorers sailed to the Americas centuries before Columbus did. Yet our history books do not write of such evidence. Loewen believes that by revealing such information (success of African explorers) there could be a diminishing of the persona of European superiority in civilization.  

 

 Do Loewen’s corrections of the Columbus story threaten certain American narratives that are still alive today? I do believe that Loewen feels Columbus’s journey was a worthy feat, however the greater truth that could have been told maybe builds a different storyline of how we talk about this time in history, in our history book. Loewen feels that by recognizing the discovery that African Americans earned in discovering American, during a time when slavery was far more accepted than today, that (as Loewen puts it) a “feel good” history might be written differently. It might give greater credit where credit is due, and our narrative might sound very different today. 

Before reading the book, what did you know about the first Thanksgiving?

I believe that Thanksgiving was built on the notion that I learned in elementary school while in art class crafting my Pilgrim and Indian paper costumes, that the Mayflower landed on Plymouth Rock.  That all the pilgrims and Indians learned to live in harmony together and ate dinner side by side at a very long table eating turkey and corn. 

 

 

How has this chapter confirmed or refuted what you previously knew? (pp. 85–88

Loewen makes clear in this chapter the world wide notion and general interpretation of the introduction of the pilgrims and Native Americans…How the pilgrims settled in North America where they fostered relationships with the Native Americans and celebrated Thanksgiving peacefully. However, he then goes on and makes clear what our history books don’t expand on. 

The History books don’t expand on the diseases that the pilgrims brought with them from England. Because of the mass exposure to epidemics, many of the pilgrims built up immunities to smallpox, influenza, and other illnesses that the Indians had not been exposed to before. Loewen explains how these disease’s wiped out more than 90 percent of the native population of New England. This mass devastation to the Native American population lent to European conquest. Not the story book meal we all learn about in those cute pilgrim and Indian art projects. The examples Loewen explains in this chapter places Thanksgiving in a different light and makes clear the selective narrative revealed in our History books. 

Loewen reveals a statement that stereotypes Native Americans, that the earliest Native Americans were not “civilized,” because they had no agriculture. He then goes on to point out that “civilizations” aren’t necessarily peaceful or agricultural. There is not evidence to draw from this that creates an absolute in description of a single group. Loewen states that because Native Americans were represented as primitive and not a very well organized group the implications were that the Europeans felt the Native Americans were an easy group to dominate. From this groups from Europe eventually altered the societies, rich in tradition of the Native Americans and fell to the European ways. 

 When Loewen speaks to Native Americans, he emphasizes syncretism as the way out for Native youth to avoid having to “choose” between “Western culture” and “Indian culture,” both of which, he points out, are already syncretic. Do you think choosing both is possible? The combing of the two different beliefs, Indian and Western Culture is not a simple task.  Both being rich in tradition, mythologies, and religion make for a steep up hill battle. For someone to have a connection to both cultures is an opportunity to keep alive, and pass along many traditions of one ancestry. I think choosing both is possible, however one culture more than likely will prevail in the recognition behavior and practice.  This practice will be revealed through religious and cultural practices. 

I think Loewen chooses Hellen Keller and Woodrow Wilson  as examples because they are generally well-known, and yet he can provide additional context (Helen's socialism, Wilson's anti-democratic policies) that demonstrates an alternative view point.

 taboos: sex, religion, social class. 

Regarding HK jokes, I think it's possible people are deflating a symbol, but I still think it's possible people are poking fun at others as well. This question makes me wonder what research exists out there about why people poke fun about others in the first place. The idea of "otherness"? I don't know.

-Sarah Ruano

Loewen reveals in his book that Brown has been described as insane, perfectly sane, and everything in between. That Brown organized a raid on the federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry, with the intention of putting guns in the hands of slaves and stirring chaos. Some even stated that Brown suffered from insanity, however that was never proven. 

 

What does this say about the current political climate in the United States and the viability of antiracism? This interpretation of Brown placed in comparison to today’s current climate we are seeing judgement placed on individual with differing opinions or labeling individuals for unpopular acts, which in turn can be classified as racism. Today current climate is struggling with acceptance of differing opinions, and the willingness to compromise.  There is great division in American today and with each example of human judgement separates American greater and Greater.   

 

 Why does Loewen take issue with defining everyone as part of the middle class? How would you 
 define middle class?

The issue Loewen takes in defining everyone as a part of the middle class  is a safe statement.  In lumping society into the largest class in society, “the middle class”. It is not offensive nor discriminate individuals or groups. However, by taking a safe approach id does an disservice to society. Loewen feels If they were changed (honest), history textbooks could serve an important social function: Loewen says they could teach students “how they and their parents, their communities, and their society came to be as they are.” This is real and challenging conversations that are health for Americans to have. Investopedia defines the middle class as a group of individuals and households who typically fall between the working class and the upper class within a socio-economic hierarchy. In Western cultures, persons in the middle class tend to have a higher proportion of college degrees than those in the working class, have more income available for consumption, and may own property. Those in the middle class often are employed as professionals, managers, and civil servants.

One of the two approaches college courses and textbooks take when examining U.S actions overseas is the interpretation and conveying of action in a cheerful, optimistic and flattering way that shine a positive light on U.S governmental action. This deters a moral objective view on foreign policy decisions which can get in the way of humanitarian action that is just serving other countries in a appropriate manner. The purpose Loewen explains is to ensure Americas reputation remains in a positive light. A second way college course and textbooks engage in the examination of U.S. action is by omitting information about U.S. actions. Loewen believes it creates the impression that citizens should trust their government because the government is looking out for the citizens best interests. 

 

 Describe the “international good guy” view of the United States government. How does this view correspond with the image of the government that Loewen has constructed over the course of previous chapters?

Loewen believes the "international good guy" image that the United States intentionally takes on is a facade to be seen as this "blind allegiance" of people. If the government can act in a way that never has people questioning their actions, and are seen as “good people”, then Americans would never question any wrongdoing. This notion corresponds with what Loewen paints for us in previous chapters by Americas constant portrayal of always doing good. Building a lens to view Americas actions to be just and fair for all. 

 

The three taboos were to skip information, to change the information to be in a favorable light, and the third was just lying about the past. I believe this is why history people may dislike teaching and learning history. At this point we don’t know if it is accurate information and if it isn’t many people feel discriminated against and they seem to minimize the suffering some people have gone through.

truths about Columbus?  - Loewen discusses how the level of overall scholarship in history textbooks is "discouragingly low" and that keeping up with evidence (oral history, written records, cultural similarities, linguistic changes, etc) is "a lot of work. To tell about early explorers, textbook authors would have to familiarize themselves with sources such as those cited in the three preceding notes. It's easier just the retell the old familiar Columbus story."  Given what Loewen writes about history professors not wanting to participate in high school textbook writing and the nature of business people at publishing companies "writing" the textbooks, this assertion makes sense to me. Loewen also argues omission of historical truths is to "make a better myth" - in fact, he repeats that phrase three times.  I do think this assertion is plausible, though the other reasons (overall generally low scholarship) is more compelling to me. 

Do Loewen’s corrections of the Columbus story threaten certain American narratives that are still alive today? -Absolutely. People don't want to learn that someone they were taught to respect and "heroify" have a dark side, that they "revolutionized race relations and transformed the modern world" by 1)"taking of land, wealth, and labor from indigenous people" and 2)"transatlantic slave trade which created a racial underclass" because it forces us to examine the premise upon which our country was "discovered" and how we have benefitted, to the detriment of others. And that we might have responsibility in righting wrongs of the past. It's just easier to believe the myth and not examine the difficult truths and what we may be called to do in response.

 - Sarah Ruano

 

In two of the bestselling books of the 19th and 20th centuries: Loewen references two books: Uncle Tom’s Cabin, and Gone With the Wind, which look at race as an important topic. Gone With the Wind idealizes a society founded on slavery, and Uncle Tom’s Cabin delivers slavery as a “moral evil” not to be tolerated. Loewen believes that history today, in textbooks tend to see Stowe’s perspective more than Mitchell. They convey slavery as an” inhuman”, establishment. I do believe that public discourse pertaining to slavery has changed in society. Besides social media making inappropriate actions more public to society for all to see, there is a zero tolerance of such inappropriate actions of racism. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Loewen points out that few American textbooks include photographs of lynching’s or other acts of white violence and terrorism against black people. Do you think they should? I believe telling the story of history and the inappropriate acts of violence and lynching that took place transpired has a place in our history books.  To allow for all to learn of the wrongful acts of white people. However, as history is being taught to children, inappropriate imagery is not as impactful as healthy conversations to develop an understanding of what has happened in America. 

 

 

Had you seen these photographs? I had not seen the photos before. 

Knowing what you know now, and having seen or revisited these photographs, has your
 opinion on the war and the politics of it changed? Knowing what I know and after visiting the photos my opinion of the conflict/politics have not changed. I believe the spread of communism that was taking shape prior to the conflict was leading to the removal of individual losing their freedoms.  I am fine with the removal or omitting of these photos from books, as long as our story tellers can describe and explain the unjust behavior and inappropriate acts on individuals. 

 Why might publishers avoid including photographs of the Vietnam War in particular? I feel publishers may start avoiding the use of such picture when tell the story of history to be more conscious and sensitive to the imagery it is portraying.  Individuals who’s culture and heritage identify with what is seen in the photos may develop a feeling of discrimination or wrongful doing by association. This is unfair for kids to feel this way therefor with the removal of the images there is a greater chance to not put students in the unfair position. 

 How does Loewen suggest a change in history textbooks could affect the current climate crisis? Loewen points out that our text books could effect the climate crisis, since 1973, Americans have consumed even more gasoline than before. Americans act as if their resources are infinite, when, in reality, oil, food, trees, and water are all finite resources. Our textbooks’ promises of a bright future.  In Loewens mind, this is adding to the environmental crisis. A demise to our climate. 

 

 

facts,” what do you feel would make students more capable and equipped to discern truth from
lies? (p. 342)One of the greatest tools we can equip students with to discern truth from lies is aiding them how to find information.  Students are so quick to “surf” the internet and take the first finds to be truth.  That “truth” then becomes their narrative.  “Their” narrative then becomes conversation for others to take as truth. And hence history is not spoken with discernment or accurate knowledge. So educating students on how to receive history is important. A second way to help students to teach them the value in utilizing multiple sources besides textbook to generate a well-rounded perspective of history story telling. Through this hopefully our students can receive history accurately. 

 In school, did the narrative of “the exceptional fairness of America” rub you the wrong way? If
not, did Loewen’s argument convince you that it should have? No, “the exceptional fairness of America” did not rub me the wrong way. I understand people have varying perspectives and a multitude of techniques in delivering their information. Loewnes argument in the attempt to convince me was received with an open mind and the willingness to learn and look at history through his perspective. 

Before reading the book, did you feel your education in history was sufficient and/or historically
accurate? Before reading this book I believed the history I was taught and read was accurate.  However after reading this book my eyes have been opened to looking at history through a multitude of lenses. To engulf other perspectives and what ripples in history the outcomes reveal.

 

After reading the book, what were the points that Loewen made that you found the most shock-
ing? I wouldn’t necessary say the most shocking, but eye opening was the discovery of America and how if that story was told differently than how our history books wrote it if the world would view our African explorers differently today. If history was rewritten would slavery existed.  

 

What were the points that were most affirming? Most affirming for me was how imagery and the photos in our history textbooks can conjure emotion and develop opinion just based on what our eyes see. Would history “feel” differently by only reading about it verse seeing it.

How does learning about the European arms race as a factor in Columbus’s voyage to the Americas affect your understanding of American history?

I think all of the factors were very interesting. The arms race does make sense. It was interesting when he compared the refusal to sell guns to the Native Americans to the power of military that Europe had. They did not want it to be unglorified though, so they decided to make the “discovery” modest and humble. It is kind of crazy how this would be hidden within our textbooks, because to me, and I am sure most people, having the facts is much more valuable! It is kind of like the last chapter, where they were talking about the racism with Woodrow Wilson and how we were destined to repeat it had we not learned from it (I think the past few years may attest to this…). Had we been taught accurately the first time, we would learn. This textbook is really enlightening how they can so easily change our perspectives by just writing it in a text.

 

Do you think Loewen is right in his diagnosis of why textbooks have omitted important historical truths about Columbus? Yes, I think they are trying to glorify the Eurpean Nations. The fact that the Vikings were here, as well as other explorers, and that fact was just ignored is very interesting. The printing press, as stated in the text, was conveniently used during Columbus so it was simple to just state that as the first person to discover. A lot of history seems to have come from ease rather than accuracy.

 

Do Loewen’s corrections of the Columbus story threaten certain American narratives that are still alive today? Yes, of course it does. In order to accept these corrections means that they have to rewrite everything. This comes down from the Europeans looking curious to accepting that they had many other monetary reasons, to accepting that people that were not European were just as “innovative, or smart.” As for the Native Americans, I cannot imagine how they must feel. To be deemed as a nuisance, violent, and dangerous, and the Europeans painted as “humble, and defending themselves,” is so disheartening. I am glad that history is slowly changing and people are acknowledging mistakes; however, this is not happening fast enough and still is a disservice to all students and people whose families have suffered. 

 

Herofication is the process that makes people over into hero’s.  This process turns the people from history in pious, perfect people without conflicts, pain, credibility, or human interest.

Helen Keller has long been depicted as a humanitarian.  Overcoming her disabilities and standing up for the rights of the disabled.  But the full history is often not told in textbooks, I had no clue before reading this chapter about radical socialist views.  Woodrow Wilson is portrayed as a positive president; the facts of his radical politics are often over looked as they would put a bad light on the office he held as president.  The fact that he ordered the American troops to kills so many Hattians would show him or the office of President in a positive light.

 

These taboos are:  sex, religion, and social class.

 

Why do they exist? These taboos main exist to protect children, keeping the people of the past in a good light, able to hero’s and roll models. Something Loewen calls the Disney effect.

Helen Keller and Woodrow Wilson are used to illustrate the herofication process because they are two widely cited people from American history. Helen Keller is shown to school children as a “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” example of anyone can do anything. A good lesson. However, Keller is cited acknowledging that her cultural and historical privilege was a powerful factor in her achievements. Wilson is taught as such an important piece of American history that the author says he should/could be the 5th head on Mr. Rushmore. However, Wilson’s cultural and historical choice-making turns out to hold quite a lot of negative attributes the history books fail to highlight. Therefore, Keller and Wilson both get “herofied” by the missing portion of their respective complete pasts.

The three taboos in textbook publishing are sex, religion, and social class. These taboos exist because publishers are selling products. Avoiding the controversy helps to sell more. What is nice about the modern world is that information is abundant. The tricky piece to this is how we teach critical thinking to our students in order to help them sift through the incredibly dense mountain of rhetoric that is out there.

Although I was taught that Columbus’s voyage to the Americas was the great adventure of an explorer for Spain in order to seek out new lands and wealth for Fernidad and Isabella, in later years, likely because I’m a history buff and an English teacher, I began to see this other narrative take form with the European explorers and the race between rulers, so it didn’t surprise me. The European world was gaining weaponry and military technology at the time with armadas equipped with canons and more. Even today, our lineage from the European world is obvious with our need to maintain a stronghold in cyberspace and technology within the military. As Loewen writes, “We live with this arms race still. But the West's advantage in military technology over the rest of the world, jealously maintained from the 1400s on, remains very much contested. Just as the thirteen British colonies tried to outlaw the sale of guns to Native Americans, the United States now tries to outlaw the sale of nuclear technology to Third World countries. A key point of George W. Bush’s foreign policy has been to deny nuclear weapons and other "weapons of mass destruction" to Iraq, Iran, and North Korea and keep them out of the hands of terrorists like al-Qaeda” (p. 35

I do think Loewen is right in his diagnosis.  Most textbooks misrepresent the facts--like that the Phoenicians sailed around the Cape of Good Hope centuries before--in order to showcase Western Civilization as the almighty explorers: “Every textbook account of the European exploration of the Americas begins with Prince Henry the Navigator, of Portugal, between 1415 and 1460. Henry is portrayed as discovering Madeira and the Azores and sending out ships to circumnavigate Africa for the first time. The textbook authors seem unaware that ancient Phoenicians and Egyptians sailed at least as far as Ireland and England” (p. 38).  In fact, Loewen points out the many explorers previous to Columbus and criticized the textbooks for not including those explorers who were abhorred by Columbus’s genocide.  He also shows how most textbooks overly simplify his conquests.  Loewen believes this is all done in service to present a glorified America. It also feeds into this concept of our “creation myth” of the Americas.

Of course they do! The American hero that dominates our culture. Think Natty Bumppo in The Last of the Mohicans.  We came as civilized people to tame a land and its people. The idea that anyone can forge a path in this country and take part in the American Dream is a huge part of our narrative with canonical literature and our ethos in this culture. But Loewen shows us that maybe we teach children the idea of Columbus sailing to the new world for spices in order to subvert the evil Turks is really just our perpetuation of stereotypes in service to our Western world view steeped in colonialism.
Loewen advocates for introducing controversy into history curriculum to allow students to weigh  evidence and arguments regarding pre-Columbian explorers—including those from Phoenicia,  Africa, Siberia, and elsewhere. What effect do you think this kind of historical education would  have on students in school and in civic life? (p. 45) 

A positive one.  Those students from disenfranchised cultures or whose narrative does not apply to canonical literature and the standard, “white-washed” accounts of history will see themselves as ACTORS in history and not victims. This gives voice to them in the classroom and builds identity, thereby building engagement and success in these students. 

Columbus and other members of his expedition left behind firsthand accounts of violent subjugation of Natives into slavery, for both labor and sex, but few textbooks incorporate these  facts. Neither do they mention Columbus’s contemporaries like Las Casas who opposed slavery,  land-grabbing, and forced labor. Why do you think textbooks leave out these matters? Do you  agree that they should? Who might such omissions alienate? Who might including this material  alienate? (p. 69) 

They are giving a sentimental version of this guy in order to perpetuate the heroification of Columbus.  But Loewen shows through Columbus’s own diaries that the explorer was opportunistic.  He enslaved the natives to exploit the land and his riches. But this narrative gives slavery in the New World a precedent--and we can no longer portray the African slave trade as one terrible thing that happened. 

Well, I would say that the epidemics that ravaged the Native populations constituted ONE of the most important events in the early 17th century.  I say ONE because we cannot possibly know with the accuracy of today’s medical and scientific communities but the ramifications to the populations and the rest of the world was.  This is because today we can track something like the Pandemic we are undergoing and have the scientific data and as much information about it’s effects on global populations, economies, education and more. That being said, clearly history textbooks don’t do a good enough job of showing how the Native Americans did not have any immunity built up from the diseases that the pilgrims passed to them.  We didn’t discuss epidemiology in those narratives because of the decidedly Eurocentric perspective. Indeed, “The English Separatists, already seeing their lives as part of a divinely inspired orality play, found it easy to infer that God was on their side. John Winthrop governor of the Massachusetts Bay colony, called the plague ‘miraculous.’” (p. 76).  (I think Winthrop held a decidedly different definition of miraculous than I do). To continue, I’ve never read a textbook that talked about the spead of disease from a scientific standpoint in the colonies and the effects of genocide (yes, genocide) of the natives. Herein also lies a dilemma for the Pilgrims because they had no concept of how they were passing the germs and why they held immunities to things like smallpox.  What we do know through Loewen is that by the Pilgrims' own accounts the natives were dying at exponential rates. William Bradford “described how the Dutch, rivals of Plymouth raveled to an Indian village in Connecticut to trade…’But their enterprise failed for it pleased God to afflict these Indians with such a deadly sickness, that out of 1,000, over 950 of them died and many of them lay rotting above ground for want of burial’” (p. 79). Loewen believes if wiped out 90 percent of the population but concedes that there are other theories related to this that are debatable.One thing is certain, with the communities dying, they could put up little fight from the colonizers.  Had they been immune to the smallpox and other diseases, it is doubtful that “[w]hen the Spanish marched into Tenochtitlan…[there would have been]so many bodies that they had to walk on them” (p. 78).  It’s far more likely that the colonizers, wrought from horrendous travels, would have been ill-equipped to tame the land or the people.  In that way, yes, disease probably was the most important geopolitical event of the age. 

As a child, what I knew about the first Thanksgiving was limited at best to the story of the unity between the uncivilized Indians and the Pilgrims “breaking bread” together after the harvest in Thanksgiving to God.  I had no idea that we “advanced peoples provided for the Natives [was] exactly the converse of the truth [and] is not benign” (p.90).  Yet, I did know by 1991 that this story was baloney. I knew because I had an exceptional professor in a multicultural/ethnic studies literature class at the University of California at Davis who had us read different cultural perspectives.  One of the perspectives in the collection of cultural essays was from a Native American who ended his essay about Thanksgiving with--and I am paraphrasing as it was a long time ago, “For the Indians, it was their last full meal.” That line forever haunts me as I come from Cherokees on my father’s side that walked the Trail of Tears. Nevertheless, I still grew up with the false Thanksgiving narrative until I was in my early 20s where I finally learned, “The archetypes associated with Thanksgiving—God on our side, civilization wrested from wilderness, order from disorder, through hard work and good Pilgrim character—continue to radiate from our history textbooks” (p. 88) but at least people where out there trying to provide a more accurate perspective. 

Loewen writes that textbooks speak of the first people to settle in North America as “primitive  savages, vaguely Neanderthalian,” while European settlers like Columbus are upheld as grand  adventurers on a mission. According to Loewen, why do authors assert that earlier settlers were less civilized? What are the implications of this kind of history? (p. 97) .  Loewen says, “Textbook writers like Beringia, I believe, because it fits their overall story line of unrelenting progress” (p. 97).  Although this is speaking to the fact that “archeological evidence is slim” (p. 97) about how man came to the Americas, it does speak to the question. If early settlers were already progressed and civilized, then how could textbook authors “sell” their line of “unrelenting progress” within a Eurocentric perspective?  They couldn’t. By showing the original inhabitants as having a “mental dullness” (p. 97) and “moving slowly” (p. 97), the explorers come off as swash-buckling, fast-moving conquerors of an inferior group--not the brutal enslavers of progressive communities. The implications of this story is that it brings about what Loewen explains, “In Sociology, we call ... ‘blaming the victim’” (p. 99). Also, to keep narratives alive in textbooks when publishers KNOW new information fully disputes it is, well, lying, and is truly “unjust to the life of [Native Americans]...who were not savages but a civilized race” (p. 100). 

I had not heard of the term “syncretism” prior to reading this book. I do believe that learning it can help decrease Americans’ ethnocentrism as it is a word that gives definition to two or more cultures working together and admiring each other enough to use the innovations from each other in a positive way in order to succeed, instead of division that comes from separatist attitudes. Ethnocentrism is perpetuated in our textbooks because “syncretism” is not. As an example, “Historian Gary Nash tells us that interculturation took place from the start in Virginia, ‘facilitated by the fact that some Indians lived among the English as day laborers while a number of settlers fled to Indian villages rather than endure the rigors of life among the autocratic English'’” (Nash, Red, White, and Black, p. 60, as cited in Loewen, 2018), p. 107). What Loewen is getting at here is that textbooks need to neither demonize settlers nor angelicize the Native Americans but instead look to the exchange of ideas and ways in which they grew. There was, indeed, a reciprocal exchange of political ideas, like the Cherokees in Virginia, food, technology and more. It was startling in a good way for me to learn that the Boston Tea Party participants dressed as Mohawk Indians because they ADMIRED them, not because they saw them as unruly and terrorizing. 

I do--because as he points out both are already syncretic.  Our American, Western Culture is heavily influenced by those Native American roots. We wouldn’t be the Americans today--our food, our clothing, our music--without the influences of the cultures. 

Loewen claims that textbooks now handle the topic of slavery with “depth and understanding.”  On what grounds does Loewen make these claims, and why did this change occur? Do you feel  this has changed the way slavery is understood in public discourse?  

Loewen discusses the ideas of the “magnolia myth” that was presented in textbooks in the 1950s. It wasn’t until the civil rights movement that the topic of slavery began to be treated with “depth and understanding” because of “Stowe’s devastating indictment of the institution” (p. 138), and that today’s “ textbooks also show how slavery increasignly dominated our political life in the first half of the 19th century” (138).  The problem remains, and why the way slavery is understood is still steeped in racism, because textbooks still convey slavery more of an isolated situation that wasn’t really a big part of American culture--but it was! And our expansionism is directly related to Southern racism and the roots of slavery in this country. Loewen writes, “U.S. territorial expansion between 1787 and 1855 was owed in large part to slavers' influence. The largest pressure group behind the War of 1812 was slaveholders who coveted Indian and Spanish land and wanted to drive Indian societies farther away from the slaveholding states to prevent slave escapes” (p. 151). The US expanded Westward because of slave owner influence. 

Loewen states that there are two legacies of slavery that persist in contemporary American society. What are they and what ideology does Loewen state is tied to these legacies? Have you  observed these at work in your own communities? (pp. 142–146) 

Loewen writes, “While textbooks now show the horror of slavery and its impace on Black America, they remain largely silent regarding the impact of slavery on whie America...and have trouble acknowledging that anything might be wrong with white Americans or with the United States as a whole” (p. 1420. But there are legacies of slavery, namely the social, cultural and economic disparity between whites and blacks, and the inherent racism that persists within white culture. I have seen this at work within my own communities.  I am privileged to live in Granite Bay--a predominantly affluent, mostly white enclave near the Sierra Foothills.  In my “pristine” neighborhood and the surrounding shopping, sidewalks are clean, there are no liquor stores or check-cashing facilities. Only Chase Banks and BevMo. Yet, years ago, I lived in a less “pristine” neighborhood where my neighbors were poor. In fact, many were illegal. Within this neighborhood and predominantly African American neighborhoods within Sacramento County, liquor stores abound. Check cashing facilities that gouge those who make check advancement loans against their paychecks keep the worker in poverty, enslaved to a menial job in order to repay the money that they again must advance with high fees.  It’s a vicious cycle of fiscal abuse and segregation amongst people. It’s racist credit practices. 

It didn’t surprise me when I read it because we had already listened to him tell the story in the podcast that began this book study. 

Loewen points out that few American textbooks include photographs of lynchings or other acts  of white violence and terrorism against black people. Do you think they should? 

This is a tough one.  I personally do not like any violent images in my head; hence, you will never see me watch a horror movie. I remember going through an Old West book that my grandfather had and seeing the photos of hanging outlaws.  I was only in 1st or 2nd grade, and it scared me enough for me to have nightmares. Yet, in order to understand the brutality of what occurred in the hopes of having it never occur again, and in order to HUMANIZE population of African Americans who, though freed from slaverywere not free from terrorization and brutality, I do believe that honest photos like this should be included in high school textbooks.  It is naive to think that teens don’t see worse violence on television and at the movies.  In this case, it is at least not for entertainment and meant to instill compassion and understanding in the atrocities that occurred. 

you agree with his explanation?

I have only ever taught 2nd grade, where we do not dig too deep into history, but it seems to be the least liked subject amongst the students. It really is a shame, as there is so much to history and even more when taught with correct data and facts. It is hard for students as it has become a lot of fact memorization of dates, people, and events. I know I felt that way going in school. 

1. Handicapped by History: The Process of Hero-making

What is “heroification”? (p. 11)

The author says that herofication is a " degenerative process that makes people over into heroes". 

Why does Loewen choose Hellen Keller and Woodrow Wilson to illustrate the heroification 

process?
The author uses Hellen Keller and Woodrow Wilson to illustrate the heroficiation as it explains that we only learned certain things about these people. For example, we learned specific things about Hellen Keller like Annie Sulllivan spelling water into her hand. But in reality, we really do not know her at all and did not know anything in her adult life and being a radical socialist. In reguards to Woodrow Wilson, we learned that he led the country though World War 1 and how he was so involved in woman's suffrage. Many students did not learn about the racial segregation of the federal government or the military interventions in foreign countries.  This is just one of many things that many students are not taught in the schools. 

What are the three taboos in textbook publishing, according to Loewen? Why do they exist? (p. 27)
The three taboos in the textbook are sex, religion and social class. They exist because they are reaching the children and showing them that these people do good things and are in good light. This is referred to as the Disney Effect as they like to show these students in a good light in order to help the children see the good in all of them.  

Loewen states that when students are making Helen Keller jokes they are “deflating a pretentious symbol that is too good to be real,” rather than poking fun at disabilities and disabled people. Do you agree with this statement? Why or why not? I agree because the students will respond more and be more into the history when they know all of the facts instead of the very dry and not as intense version. They may joke around because that is all that they know about her. If they knew all of the facts, they would not poke fun.

you agree with his explanation?
I do agree with his belief that history is the least-liked subject in high school.  I remember feeling like it was just a bunch of facts that I had to memorize for tests and then forget.  I never understood that timeline of events or narratives involved until later. The way that history continues to be taught is certainly not setting students up to "evaluate claims that our leaders and would-be leaders make" (xxvii).

What is “heroification”? (p. 11)
Heroification is when "our educational media turn flesh and blood individuals into pious, perfect creatures without conflicts, pain, credibility, or human interest."

process? These are two well-known figures who are repeatedly turned into heroes in history classes when they do have some history that is not so favorable.

27)
The three taboos in textbook publishing are "sex, religion and social class" (27).  They exist because if they are committed, textbook publishers may not make money.

Do you agree with this statement? Why or why not?
I agree with this statement because although she had some worthwhile qualities, there are many other figures from history that we can learn similar inspiration from and appreciate their journeys.  It is important to learn about and from people with disabilities, but not in such as such an inflated hero.

Do Loewen’s corrections of the Columbus story threaten certain American narratives that are still alive today?
Loewen's corrections of the Columbus story threatens the narrative that says that there is only one way of looking at history. It leaves out lens or perspectives of many different groups and countries that are part of it. I like Loewen's insistence that "our culture encourages us to imagine that we are richer and more powerful because we are smarter' (37). 
Loewen advocates for introducing controversy into the history curriculum to allow students to weigh evidence and arguments regarding pre-Columbian explorers—including those from Phoenicia, Africa, Siberia, and elsewhere. What effect do you think this kind of historical education would

have on students in school and in civic life? (p. 45)
Asking students to consider controversy will force them to think critically, weighing the pros and cons of all sides and drawing a conclusion.  This is not only a good way for students to gain an understanding of various perspectives, but it also forces them to weigh the facts and determine values on each side.  This is a much more active learning strategy rather than passively being told a narrative about history and taking it as face value.

Columbus and other members of his expedition left behind firsthand accounts of violent subjugation of Natives into slavery, for both labor and sex, but few textbooks incorporate these facts. Neither do they mention Columbus’s contemporaries like Las Casas who opposed slavery, land-grabbing, and forced labor. Why do you think textbooks leave out these matters? Do you agree that they should? Who might such omissions alienate? Who might including this material alienate? (p. 69)
Textbooks leave out these violent incidents because they interfere with the heroifcation of Columbus. They also infer that America was not developed in a fair and honest way, forcing Americans to recognize the evils done and in some ways still owed to people who were wronged in its development.  Groups of people who have connections to ancestors who were wronged would be alienated and may also be turned off from learning any other future history.

less civilized? What are the implications of this kind of history? (p. 97) Aurthors assert this this type of thought because it is what has been written time after time and rewriting from a different perspective and going against what most thought was the truth would cause riffles. It seems that the settlers were less civilized based on their actions and how much they actually relied on the Natives to show and help them. 

Loewen defines “syncretism” as taking elements from two (or more) cultures to form something 

new. He says it is “how cultures typically change and survive.” Had you heard of the term? Might 

learning it help decrease Americans’ ethnocentrism?
Before reading this chapter I have never heard of this term. That being said, now I can see how this term would make sense. People from different cultures have to learn to work with, live with and respect each others beliefs. I can see how this would cause two or more cultures to blend together and form something new.

As for the rags-to-riches story, I am not sure why this persists. My husband always says, “You need to have money to make money.” And I certainly see this to be true! Many people in poverty are stuck in a loop and do not have an opportunity to take risks to make investments that may make them a lot of money. They have families to support, they have an unstable job etc. So I completely do think and agree that it is near impossible to make money if you come from a poor background. I believe middle class is typically referring to those that have a salary, a stable job, and have enough money to take certain risks. To be upper class, I believe pays little attention to expenditures because they know that they will not lose their job, they will have money for any kind of situation and are less cautious with their money. To claim that we are all middle class eliminates the ability to learn where your family has scome from and how. It also paints a picture as to what has historically been accurate.

I was actually born right in the middle of the Vietnam War. The year was 1968, and my father was the navigator in a B52 Bomber stationed out of Okinawa while my mother gave birth to me at Mather Air Force Base. Crazy to think about this all these years later. I guess that makes me a part of it for what it is worth. The political divide that was going on then was very reminiscent of the political divide happening today. I remember as an elementary school child seeing plenty of pictures from the war. My father also had personal pictures from his time there. I have never truly understood war. I did not understand it as a child, and I still do not get it as an old man. Intellectually - I guess that man has a defect of being intoxicated with power and having to be what is “right.” This myopic viewpoint seems to leave little room for any kind of diverse thinking nor discussions. I completely disagree with photographs being absent from textbooks. I do feel that there should be some guidelines for what primary students see versus high school students. But there is a way to still get the point across without damaging young children. The lesson of how wrong war was/is should be front and center. There should be no sugar coating nor omissions. The problem with wars overseas including Vietnam and Iraq and the countless other wars that do not make the news is that they become almost fictitious. Being so far away - they seem like a story or some movie. It does not help that actual movies depict false narratives of historical events. There are even several movies that take a comic approach to the events in Vietnam (and Iraq) making it more difficult for viewers to understand the absolute tragedies that really happened. When talking to people that have lived in these places, it becomes all too heartbreaking. I think the nameless monikers of the Vietnam War and the War in Iraq sterilize the event and put distance from thinking of the actual people that are affected. The homes that were demolished, the lives that are ended, the families that are torn apart. How is any of this funny?

Chapter #10

There are plenty of challenges that historians and textbook authors face when writing about recent history. For starters, authors can not very well use historical perspective to defend treatments of events in recent history. There is a possibility of having incomplete facts and providing a false sense of the events. However, Loewen goes on to cite that “the passage of time does not in itself provide perspective….Information is lost as well as gained over time.” Therefore, authors should not be hesitant to write on recent events in history using the best facts that they can gather. Loewen cites that even if authors do get it right, most teachers do not even get through the entire textbook in a school year. Many times they only get to the Reconstruction. This is sad. In addition to author pitfalls, publishers are in the business of making money and are often sensitive to the risk of offending parents - the people who ultimately will be paying for these books (eventually through taxes). One advantage to writing about the recent past is that there will be access to primary sources and people that were actually involved in the events. Authors could also present a variety of “sides” to the events by bringing in the actual people that experienced the history. 

2.  Textbooks often cite states’ rights as a key reason for secession. According to Loewen, this is  flatly wrong. What is the present-day view on the origins of the Confederacy? What mythology 

was the Confederacy founded on?
Loewen writes, "as the war continued, the Confederacy began to deny states' rights within the new nation.  As early as December 1862, President Jefferson Davis denounced states' rights as destructive to the Confederacy...[meanwhile this led] to the "ware [being fought] not just betwee North and South but between Unionists and Confederates within the Confederacy...thus states' rights as an ideology was contradictory and could not mobilize the white South for the long haul"  (p. 194). 

As a side note, I think that Loewen crystallizes his ideas in this chapter by writing, "Taking ideas seriously does not fit with the rhetorical style of textbooks, which presents events so as to make them seem foreordained along a line of constant progress. Including ideas would make history contingent: things could go either way, and have on occasion. The 'right' people, armed with the 'right' ideas, have not always won. When they didn’t, the authors would be in the embarrassing position of having to disapprove of an outcome in the past. Including ideas would introduce uncertainty. This is not textbook style. Textbooks unfold history without real drama or suspense, only melodrama" (p. 173).

I do agree with Loewen on this account, and believe he is correct when he writes, “Middle -class students, especially, know little about how the American class structure works, however and nothing at all about how it has changed over time...These students do not leave high school merely ignorant of the workings of the class structure; they come out as terrible sociologists” (p. 204).  I further contend that the constant funnel of social media in their faces competes with any real and thoughtful discussions about work, worker’s rights and issues of labor. Consequently, students leave school woefully unprepared for the issues that may arise and completely without knowledge of protections.  At the same time, they have been filled with influencers and a lifestyle that isn’t formed on a foundation of anything more than smoke, gloss, and airbrushing.  It’s a terrible combination that might put us back to a Dickensian society if we’re not careful. 

I wouldn’t say that the recent teacher strikes have made me more curious about the history of workers’ rights in the United States--because we are enmeshed in an unsustainable situation right now, and I’m more interested in how my union has been maneuvering our rights within the pandemic. 

I might be so bold with this question to change “textbook authors” to “teachers”--because we teach standards, so we can supplement and make sure we include class, social stratification, income distribution and inequality.  It is about relinquishing power and voice to our students in the negotiation of their identities. In order to explain what I mean, a little research came into play for my response. The need for awareness exists with teachers and administrations concerning their language and power—perceived or otherwise—in the classroom that can interfere with student learning, and can be accurately described through the research of Buzzelli and Johnston (2002), from their book, The Moral Dimensions of Teaching: Language, Power, & Culture In Classroom Interaction:

"The notion of power is best understood as something that resides neither entirely within an individual nor in the group, but rather in the complex interplay between them; like language, it is both personal and social. It is thus misleading to say that someone (for example, the teacher) ‘has’ power; but it also is mislead­ing to suggest that invisible ‘power structures’ predetermine our relations. Rather, as with language, individual agency exists alongside constraining social forces, making relations of power a complex series of negotiations in which everyone participates. Thus, along with language, power is an important way in which relations in a group (such as a class) are mediated" (pp. 50-51).

Moreover, the researchers theorize that “power relations are profoundly imbued with questions of values, beliefs, and notions of what is right and wrong, good and bad—in short, with moral significance” (Buzzelli & Johnston, 2002, p. 51) and without an inventory of the morality biases we bring to the classroom, how can we truly implement humanizing and equitable pedagogies that reward our students within a EQUITABLE system? Given that “social and school discourses are often shaped by the dominant ideology to maintain the power structures in society” (McKay & Wong, 1996 as cited in Chen, 2010, p. 166), identity construction, negotiation, and student agency are often withheld from students, especially for students with first languages other than English and those within a disenfranchised or poverty stricken community. Academic and social environments and communities of practice that practice and promote more equitable power dynamics prompt more positive identity negotiation and conformity to the expectations of those situated identities, whereas, environments in which traditional teacher-centered power structures dominate, often result in students’ resistance, rebellion, and rejection of the inequitable, powerless identity imposed upon them by such instructional practices. Teachers would be wise to recognize that student identity is “under constant negotiation” and renegotiation (p. 175), and the “the nature of power relations [will determine] whether students’ identity negotiation [will] be successful in the community” of practices in which a student find themselves (p. 176). The implications for educational institutions and educators are profound: 

"educators play a key role in constructing students’ identities through their everyday teaching practices and social relations...Teachers should be critical of institutional practices that may impose undesirable identities on students and become advocates in making necessary institutional changes" (p. 177) .

As such, teachers should work toward legitimizing funds of knowledge (Moll, Amanti, & Gonzalez, 1992), through instructional practices that draw on the constructivist approach of validating students’ language, culture, prior knowledge, interest and expertise (p. 177), for “when students feel supported in their self-worth, they have a much stronger sense of belonging” (p. 177) in the communities with which they engage, creating a more equitable distribution of power. Teachers must recognize that more collaborative power relations can help students negotiate more favorable identities which leads to more favorable learning experiences and outcomes. Therefore, it is important to teach students about class, income distribution, and more--to help them negotiate identity and provide a voice to all in your classroom. Loewen even writes, “In the most recent American Pageant, for example, social class goes unmentioned in the twentieth century. Many teachers compound the problem by avoiding talking about social class in the twenty-first. A study of history and social studies teachers ‘revealed that they had a much broader knowledge of the economy, both academically and experientially, than they admitted in class.’ Teachers “expressed fear that students might find out about the injustices and inadequacies of their economic and political institutions.’ By never blaming the system, American history courses thus present Republican history” (Loewen, 2018, p. 209).

Buzzelli, C. A., & Johnston, B. (2002). The moral dimensions of teaching: Language, power, and culture in classroom interaction. Routledge. 

Chen, X. (2010). Identity construction and negotiation within and across school communities: The case of one English-as-a-new-language (ENL) student. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 9, 163-179. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2010.486274

Loewen, J.W. (2018). Lies my teacher told me. The New Press. 

McKay, S. L., & Wong, S. C. (1996). Multiple discourses, multiple identities: Investment and agency in second-language learning among Chinese adolescent immigrant students. Harvard Educational Review, 3, 577-608. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.66.3.n47r06u264944865 

Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of Knowledge for Teaching: Using a Qualitative Approach to Connect Homes and Classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 31(2), 132-141. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849209543534

America has engaged in some questionable and immoral foreign policy practices. But we have wrapped it in a pretty paper of democracy and keeping others safe.  Textbook shows us as a cheerful country, full of optimism ( Yes, we can!) and a great fighter of the evils of things like communism. We gloss over our inhumanity, like the recent CIA torturing in Guantanamo Bay, and showcase our humanitarian programs like the Peace Corps, showing us as a prioritizer of peace and democracy around the world.  This “international good guy” view aligns with Loewen’s descriptions of textbooks narratives, especially in its “Heroifying” of our U.S. leaders who haven’t necessarily been moral in their foreign policy. 

Loewen argues that “it is a matter of grave potential concern to students” (p. 224) because 1) U.S. policy has been unduly influenced by corporations and banks and many may have to fight in a foreign country and 2) jobs will be eliminated at the multinational companies move them to Third World countries as the worker will work for less. Moreover, Loewen believes that “ Multinationals may represent a threat to national autonomy, affecting not only small nations but also the United States” (p. 225). Loewen writes that multinationals don’t fit the textbook publishers “international good guy approach.”  He asserts that “the undue impact of multinationals on governments isn’t limited to foreign countries. Textbooks need to discuss their influence on U.S. foreign policy, beginning perhaps with the administration of Woodrow Wilson” (p. 225).

My father, CW4 Rominger, was a Medevac pilot commander at 19 in Vietnam.  I happen to know much about Vietnam--because I grew up with the best, dang dad on the planet--but he also didn’t shy away from politics or his survivor’s guilt. My dad enlisted before he was drafted in order to--in his words-- “save lives and not take lives.” At nineteen, my father was in flight school, and I was born.  The men of his graduating class, all just out of high school, pooled their money to buy me my first present--and something I cherish to this day--a silver, baby cup engraved with his class letter.  I also have the stories told first hand to us.  He had a slide show that we called “Vietnam Lite” because it was given when guests came over and had all the gnarly stuff mostly edited out.  They were told of his helicopter being shot out of the sky and the swift boats coming a day later under darkness to lift them out of the MeKong to safety and show the pictures of the burnt helicopter--but they weren’t told of the medevac mission into the Da Lat that was called in before the bombs actually went off and the CIA helicopter in the distance or that my dad and his crew were called in too soon and, therefore, knew too much and were likely shot out of the sky by the CIA to try and kill them.  In truth, I know too much.  Upon my father’s death in 2010, I went down a rabbit hole of research.  I interviewed as many men as would let me who knew him there, flew with him,  and knew of the missions.  I researched the University of Texas, Austin’s Vietnam archives.  I read declassified reports and more.  I have my father’s slides and maps and more.  In my father’s last years, I listened to him tell of saving lives and lost lives--I listened to the horror of him watching his crew chief get strung up in the jungle by the Vietcong and eviscerated.  I listened to him tell of being spit on and called a “baby killer” when he’d saved lives, remember?  And actually delivered many babies on his helicopter. This chapter is hard to read for me.  When Vietnam is brought up, my stomach churns.  My father, CW4 Rominger, came home the day Neil Armstorng walked on the moon.  He was profoundly affected by the war but also the most giving and kind man on the planet.  He was the world’s greatest grandpa, too.  So in my defense in answering this question--it’s a lot for me to ponder and, and yes, I’ve seen the photographs.  What’s more, I lived with a father who took thousands of photographs and flew thousands of missions. And I’m answering the questions with him in mind. Those photographs shouldn’t be omitted--but they also shouldn’t be the only ones.  I think they limit the perspective of the American soldier.  One of my biggest issues I have with Hollywood is showing really twisted accounts of the Vietnam Veteran.  I know this chapter is about textbooks--want to know the best textbook?  The people. The people who were there.  That generation is dying.  We would do well to have our students interview a Vietnam Vet and go through their “Vietnam Lite” and “Vietnam Dark” slide shows. It is the only way to show humanity in the horror of inhumanity. 

As a side note, before my father died, a student of mine was doing a research project on Vietnam. My father graciously spent several days helping him with documents and interviews. That kid was so amazed my his grace under pressure at 19 and skill as a pilot and compassion for all that he went into the military (West Point) and flight school. Years later, another student saw an article about my dad, and asked me questions. I got invited to his West Point graduation last year--he went Medevac, influenced, he said, by my dad. Maybe this wasn't the response everyone was looking for--but nothing in a textbook can prepare you for the reality of someone who lived it.

What are the challenges that historians and textbook authors face when writing about recent history? What are some advantages? (pp. 260-262). 

Loewen gives us two interesting concepts in relationship this this subject: sasha and zamari.  Zamari are the deceased; in the case of history, it is those that have gone before--a long time ago, where there is no one who is alive today to recall the events.  The sasha are the recently deceased--in history, those concepts that events that have recently unfolded and are unfolding.  Textbook authors of the past were influenced by THEIR history in the writing of the textbooks. Case in point, Woodrow Wilson was not regarded well when he was president, but in the 1950s, the world had moved towards his brand of foreign policy, and he was revered as a hero of democracy later. The challenge for textbook authors and historians when recounting the events when writing about recent history is that, at any given time, there are those alive that refute or argue a different side to the issues. As Loewen writes, “The contrast between the 1892 and 1992 celebrations of Columbus’s first voyage again shows the effect of different vantage points. As Anaïs Nin put it, we see things as we are, and “we” changed between 1892 and 1992” (p. 263).With present history, Loewen explains it this way: “Consider how we read an account of an event we lived through, especially one in which we ourselves took part, whether a sporting event or the Iraq War. We read partly in spirit of criticism, assessing what the authors got wrong as well as agreeing with and perhaps learning from what they got right” (p. 260).  There is an even greater challenge now when so much information is spewed out without credibility.  We move at internet speed and the news cycle is much different that it was 20 years ago even. Finally, textbook publishers are in business and don’t want to piss anyone off.  That means sales. With present history, and adoption practices, they tend to gloss over anything past Vietnam and pull the sanitized versions. Loewen writes, “But today’s texts, published between 2000 and 2007, give short shrift to the new recent past, the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s” (p. 260) 

It is shocking when you read, “Internationally, referring to have-not countries as ‘developing nations’ has helped ‘developed nations’ avoid facing the injustices of worldwide stratification. In reality, ‘development’ has been making Third World nations poorer compared to the First World” (p. 284).  My psyche was flooded with images of sweatshops in India and the entrenched poverty along the Ganges. Then when Loewen juxtaposes it with “[i]n the 19th century, progress provided an equally splendid rationale for imperialism. Europeans and Americans saw themselves as performing governmental services for and utilizing the natural resources of natives in distant lands, who were too backward to do it themselves,” (p. 284), I nearly jumped out of my chair. Yes, his discussion did challenge my notion a bit.  

We have many active problems--nuclear weapons, terrorists, climate change, extinction and more, and Loewen argues essentially that to NOT change our history books into vehicles for our students to use the present to see and envision new, radical plans for improvement will likely result in the extinction of us. He says, “just keeping to the old paths regarding all these new problems is unlikely to work...Not one textbook brings up the whale oil lesson, the Haiti lesson, or any other inference from the past that might bear on the question of progress and the environment” (p. 292) and that is terrifying to this grandma.  He further contends, “Authors should have shown trends in the past that suggest we face catastrophe and other trends that suggest solutions. Doing so would encourage students to use evidence from history to reach their own conclusions. Instead, the authors assured us that everything will come out right in the end, so we need not worry much about where we are going. Their endorsement of progress was as shallow as General Electric's, a company that claims, ‘Progress is our most important product,’ but whose ecological irresponsibility has repeatedly earned it a place on Fortune's list of the ten worst corporate environmental offenders. No longer do I suggest this even handed approach. Even though Simon is right and capitalism is supple, in at least two ways our current crisis is new and cannot be solved by capitalism alone” (p. 291). Throughout the book, Loewen has fought for open-endedness to history, encouraging students to consider different interpretations.  But with climate change, such a critical problem for the world, students must be taught about it and not deluded--not given the “cheerful” ending of most American textbooks. 

I will tell you who I find the least credible--PUBLISHERS.  Prior to my career as an educator, I worked in publishing.  I saw first-hand how the business operates.  When a proposal is put before an editor, the most important section of the proposal is the marketing sections.  If someone can prove that the publisher will sell copies of their book, that publisher will buy it.  Not all acquisitions editors are as knowledgeable on the subjects as the authors.  Loewen does a good job of showing how the “marketing of textbooks is like marketing fishing lures: the point is to catch fishermen, not fish. Thus many adopted textbooks are flashy to  catch the eye of adoption committees but dull when read by students” (p. 309). Because policy is always changing and adoption boards seem to listen less to the teachers with knowledge of what is needed in the text, I can’t get behind them as the most credible either--especially in our current landscape, post-pandemic, rife-with-dissent. I think I’m going to have to go with authors--because Loewen points out that “The upper class controls publishing...but its control does not extend to content, at least not if the books in question make money” (p. 306).  It has been my experience in publishing (and I worked for an imprint of Random House and have authored many titles, including a Scholastic Book, Pearson Education books, and teaching books with Random House) that authors are well-being and want to impart GOOD information. I do know that revised editions, a facet of publishing and money making, only need 30 percent of new or revised content to be included in the revision. I also know that the people who make the least off of the textbooks are the authors of the content.   From Loewen’s assertions to my intimate knowledge of publishing, I must choose authors at the most credible.

I think an understanding of the classical components of ethos, pathos, and logos is an important tool for students to discern what is truth and what are lies. At the core, is teaching students about credible documents and sources. I also believe that each discipline MUST teach text structures and teach children to read with the grain and then “against the grain,” questioning every fact of the piece. Who is the article written by?  What are their credentials? What is bias and how might it be permeating the account? I agree with Loewen that emotion is the glue that causes history to stick--that’s pathos.  Pathos calls people to action.  But pathos alone cannot affect change. That's why rote memorization with emotion is worthless. In order for change to occur, meaningful instruction must occur that employs critical thinking.  Textbooks have an obligation to provide opportunities for DISCOURSE.  Because only through oral discourse with authentic credible sources does true comprehension occur.  We need students who are so versed in truth and possessed of a critical eye that they have a passion to be actors in their own world, enacting change. 

It does rub me the wrong way and did rub me the wrong way--most likely because I just finished a research study on bias and inequity in the classroom with a focus on identity negotiation of students. In a previous post, I discussed at length the idea of voice and power. Inequitable power relations are prevalent in schools, and teachers must lay aside biases and provide more voice to their disenfranchised and marginalized groups.  Again, they shouldn’t be seen as victims in literature and history--but they should be seen as actors.  This is the  socially just classroom, a classroom in which “seeing people of color as historical agents ‘might begin to lift the weight of history’ on students' shoulders thereby honoring students’ experiences and contributions in the classroom and other contexts” (Epstein, 2011, p. 9).

Epstein, T., Mayorga, E., & Nelson, J. (2011). Teaching about race in an urban history class: The effects of culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Social Studies Research, 35 (1), 2.

Loewen, J.W. (2018). Lies my teacher told me.  The New Press.

That’s an interesting question. I’d like to see how the arts were impacted, along with the literary periods.  What literature do we not read?  I’d like to see the juxtaposition of the canonical literature versus the non-canonical and anti-canonical literature and a discussion of it. This is an important topic in education, too. While some curricular decision-making is controlled by districts, school boards, sites, departments, and professional learning teams, there remain opportunities for teachers to augment mandated curricula with text selections that are more personally relevant to students and work in the service of creating greater equity in the classroom. One such way is through the incorporation of noncanonical popular culture texts in the classroom. Expanding the Canon: How Diverse Literature can Transform Learning (ILA, 2018) asserts that “books selected for literacy learning should be representative of the diverse streams of culture, history, and language that compose today’s increasingly global society” (p. 2); This brief ends with the idea that “diverse literature can transform students’ identities and the narratives they carry about the people they encounter” (p. 7). We can do no less as teachers than to make sure that we teach standards through the literature that authentically engages all groups and creates passionate readers and compassionate humans who see the value of all cultures and identities before them.

Well, I felt that I had a sufficient understanding, but I clearly did not. I was attune to the inaccuracies of our history and am a diligent student of the news--but the depth in which Loewen showcases the preferred narratives in textbooks was shocking.  In literature, we are having our own battles down regarding non-canonical literature, so it shouldn’t have been.  

Quite simply, I was shocked at how differently I’d been taught in the 1970s as an elementary student. And high school.  History in high school was nothing more than reading the textbook and answering the questions. We never analyzed anything.  I analyzed around the dinner table with my father more. 

 What were the points that were most affirming?

It was affirming to know that there is hope for our most marginalized students and that history can be a great negotiator of identity for students of varied backgrounds and cultures.  I also am intrigued on how I might incorporate some of the knowledge in my English class lessons.  We have an obligation to teach in a culturally responsive way. No matter what the district hands down as the text. As educators, we have an obligation to assess the text from a social-cultural perspective and, at the least, try to support our students' unique backgrounds while remediating areas of struggle in an equitable way that corrects the inequitable power structures that proliferate our systems. 

Chapter #10

There are plenty of challenges that historians and textbook authors face when writing about recent history. For starters, authors can not very well use historical perspective to defend treatments of events in recent history. There is a possibility of having incomplete facts and providing a false sense of the events. However, Loewen goes on to cite that “the passage of time does not in itself provide perspective….Information is lost as well as gained over time.” Therefore, authors should not be hesitant to write on recent events in history using the best facts that they can gather. Loewen cites that even if authors do get it right, most teachers do not even get through the entire textbook in a school year. Many times they only get to the Reconstruction. This is sad. In addition to author pitfalls, publishers are in the business of making money and are often sensitive to the risk of offending parents - the people who ultimately will be paying for these books (eventually through taxes). One advantage to writing about the recent past is that there will be access to primary sources and people that were actually involved in the events. Authors could also present a variety of “sides” to the events by bringing in the actual people that experienced the history. 

Chapter #7 

This is indeed an interesting time to examine the workforce and the company/employee relationship. Profits are being amassed bigger and faster than ever before. Yet the wealth gap is growing faster than before as well. By leaving out important uprisings (strikes) from history, it is easy to draw the line to workers of today who feel they have less power to stand up against corporations. There is a positive in modern times that the internet has created a literal web of information sources that make it much easier for workers today to organize. Teacher strikes have done a great job to bring attention to issues as needed. We are currently seeing this show up with positions related to the COVID vaccinations. Not just in schools, but in many working sectors across the country. The Janus ruling highlights how employees should have the right to choose between being in or out of a union. There is a concern with Free Riders, but this is by far the exception rather than the rule. Students face incredible loss when facts are left out of history books. This is a constant concern. Textbooks much like news agencies should report accurate and complete facts. Opinions and subjective leanings should have no place in either venue. Defining everyone as “middle class” is a very dangerous characterization. First of all, the semantics of “middle” leave discussions open to a wide variety of interpretations. The middle could literally mean everyone except for the single highest and the single lowest - not valid. The spirit of talking about the middle is to get at more of a median level. I think that it is reasonable to think of a middle class as people that work working in positions that are somewhat stable and have the ability to stay on top of paying bills with perhaps a small bit to save. The problem is even calling this a “class” system to begin with. Class denotes status which can be wildly different from wealth. It can be manipulated into another way to divide people rather than bring people together. It is not surprising to me that the rags to riches story is bent. Like with most things, the entire story is not really told. There is likely a need to have discussions about paths to success and identify obstacles that can be eliminated. The rags to riches story is intoxicating. It simultaneously provides hope to some while erasing the reality for others. I suppose there is a little bit of truth on both sides. It is in the manner that these topics are taught that is of concern. The outliers of success should be highlighted. The failures too. Only when we can get a more objective and complete truth in textbooks will be able to provide a reasonable education to young people.

Chapter #6

John Brown is currently thought of as “neutral” and “bland” according to Loewen’s research in textbooks. While there are still some texts that call Brown insane or “mentally ill” or “crackbrained” though these are never substantiated. Evidence from Brown’s contemporaries shows just the opposite. The current political climate in the US is still quite unfortunately divided. Infact, I would posit that the racist views held in current times are often deeply veiled and camouflaged in the ranks. Sure there are those that actually make their racism known, but it is the significant numbers of people that say one thing publicly and another in private discussions that is concerning. The viability of antiracism will continue to be a slowly moving evolution over the years. It’s complexity makes a simple switch or fix impossible. The truth and access to information will be a key element to making forward movement. 

Present day views on the origins of the Confederacy is that of the Southern States made up of people that wanted to protect their way of life including the crop economy and political power controlled by white men. More pointedly that there is a “a great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man, that slavery - subordination to the superior race - is his natural and normal condition.” Yikes! This is hard to resolve from a modern day point of view. The mythology that the Confederacy was founded on is that the disputes were Heroic and had little to do with slavery. This is patently wrong. Access to several sources shows this softening of the actual history is purely wrong. 

The two legacies of slavery that still persist in America are the social and economic inferiority it caused upon blacks and the cultural racisim it instilled in whites. “Both continue to haunt our society.” This is a sad truth that deserves much more attention in the classroom for all students. The long lasting effects that slavery has negatively had on generations of blacks in America is still seen today. While many people will be quick to point out black doctors, lawyers, sports stars, actors, and even the President of the United States - these are the exception - not the rule. It is true that “things have gotten much better,” but there is certainly an enormous amount of work to still be done. 

Loewen’s anecdote with his students and a discussion of the Reconstruction was a bit shocking. I suppose it does not shock me that history was delivered to these students incompletely, but looking at things through today’s lens makes it hard to believe with the internet and access to multiple sources at ease. Loewen’s anecdote took place in 1970, so the historical relevance is very important. 

Pictures and multimedia representations of truthful history are extremely important to the teaching of students. This of course needs to be looked at based on age appropriateness, but for high school students, there should be as valid representation as possible. The old adage, “a picture is worth a thousand words” comes to mind here. I have taught NIGHT to my 10th graders for several years. The images of concentration camps and Nazi’s throwing babies in the air to shoot like targets makes a much more significant impact on the horror of the the Halocaust than simply stating that millions of Jews (and other groups) were killed. Humans react to individual stories much more deeply than lists of statistical facts.

Chapter #4

Authors assert that earlier settlers were less civilized because this creates a perceived separation of class. The term civilized is also conflated to give a false value to certain groups. The semantics are quite interesting: explorer, conqueror, killer, visitor, traveller, settler, etc. These terms can all get used, but the hidden power in the selection of each word holds meaning. When writing about history, these word choices really bend the narrative. History that is not offered through an objective lens is very dangerous. 

Syncretism is an interesting term. I had not heard of this before reading this book. It seems as if this term is as relevant today in American as it ever has been in the past. The incredible flattening of the world, the ability to move humans all over the globe with ease, has made culture mash ups very common. With this, the conundrum of which culture to belong to becomes complicated. This is especially difficult with children of mixed cultural families. I do think that it is possible to choose multiple cultures. It gets progressively complicated depending on the nuances of each culture. This is a real challenge for students we teach today. I will restate that Professor Ayala shared his definition on culture; “Everything that has happened to a person throughout their life.” All of this highlights why it is so very important for people to get to know eachother as individuals. The extreme variances of diverse cultures is even deeper when looking into individual families and the people within.

Chapter #11

Loewen’s critique on progress and development definitely added to my thinking about how to define words such as “better.” It is interesting to see how history books used to boast how fast teh population was growing in America. This of course is quite the polar opposite these days as the planet soars towards 8 billion people. What is also concerning is how Loewen cites “no textbook charts phenomena that might be negative, such as air pllution alerts, increased reliance on imported oil, or declining real wages.” It is this idea of “American Exceptionalism” that is really being sold in these books. Again - a move to “hero-ify” the nation. Loewen suggests that by revealing the whole truths in history books, more concerned people will be armed with the knowledge to organize and move towards creating choices that really do better the planet. The flattening of the planet over the last several decades has really made it true more than ever that choices here can have consequences over there. Even to look back at how we used to get rid of waste; throw it in a pile ina field, dump it in the ocean, etc. Now we must look closely at how choices affect people globally. Getting cheap consumer items is quite popular in America, but do many of us think about the overall cost of certain imports; slave labor, poor EPA practices, stripping resources from the earth. It goes on and on. Loewen is correct that textbooks should serve to give American school children access to all of this information.

Chapter #12

It is very interesting to read Loewen’s arguments for the inaccuracies of American textbooks. I believe that publishers, authors, as well as local and state curriculum adoption boards all have a hand in providing less than the best options for students. This argument is so very nuanced as each arm of this situation tends to have a particular culture attached to it that is often embedded over several decades. Publishes are interested in making money. Authors are interested in getting published. Local adoption boards are interested in keeping their elected positions. Therefore, there seems to be a need for an entity to oversee how textbooks are adopted in a national way. I think representatives from every state (sometimes multiple places in a varied state) should work together to choose a variety of authors and publishers to create a more standardized text that paints the broader picture. This, of course, is a tall task. This is probably why it has not been accomplished yet. Authors are afraid to write about certain areas as they will be cancelled. Local boards are focused on only delivering what their constituents want to hear. This is a perfect place for the federal system to stake a place in education. State Standards are certainly a good start towards making sure large groups of students are getting similar instruction, but that fades quickly moving from state to state. This is a cop-out answer, but I do not think any one of these choices is the most credible. Each choice has significant deficits. The only true way to get a fair and complete decision on what goes in a text and which texts to use in public school - there needs to be a higher power made up with representatives fro all states to oversee the process. Families that disagree with the product will then have the option to attend private or alternative schools.

seventeenth century. Is he right?
These diseases devasted numerous groups of people. "Their net result was that the English, for their first fifty years in New England, would face no real Indian challenge" (76). This allowed the English to "settle," develop and grow their population. This helped them establish roots and become a strong force against "intruders."

confirmed or refuted what you previously knew? (pp. 85–88).
Before reading this book, I was taught the traditional myth of the first Thanksgiving, but I had also learned to question this along the way through various history classes in college. This chapter helped me see through the numerous holes in the story and opened my eyes to the ridiculous number of illnesses and viruses that were given to the Indians as well as the parts of the story that leave room for questioning and do not truly make sense based on common sense and evidence.

Chapter #13

In the current age of “alternative facts,” I think that deep training in rhetoric and civil discourse will be the tools that all students need to become more capable and equipped to discern truth from lies. In fact, there is way more than just the binary terms of truth and lies. There is a deep chasm of gray area with partial truths and slanted truths that can be used to manipulate students (citizens) without “lying.” Spin doctors and lobbyists have become incredibly skilled at these weapons. Some modern tools are sites such as 

How Reliable is Your News:

And

Ground News

I have used these sites in my classroom for the past several years. They do a great job of curating several sources so that students can compare the same story as it changes from headline to content. 

Lies My Teacher Told Me

Unit Plan

Fall 2021

NIGHT is a multi-week Unit of Character-Based Lesson Plans from the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University. Each lesson is well laid out in the following format:

Outcomes  - lists the Common Core Standards of focus

Background - Activates prior knowledge and foreshadows the upcoming reading.

Word Wall - Vocabulary with text pages.

Review - a quick review of the previous chapter.

Read - a 10-12 page selection of the text.

Timeline - a prompt to respond in chronological order for events in this chapter.

Map - a version of a KWL Chart that is ongoing throughout the readings.

Discussion - 7-10 Key Questions that can be used as class discussion or assigned writing.

Analyze - a key passage is highlighted for a discussion prompt.

Write - practice at writing argumentative paragraphs that require citations from the text.

Close - opportunities to extend the lesson to life and the world with community activities.

I have taught this for many years as a one-semester Unit with my Sophomore English class. The Unit is very well constructed and ready to use as-is for any classroom.

I particularly love the writing prompts.

Link to the full UNIT:

Lies My Teacher Told Me

Lesson Plan

Fall 2021

Equity and Equality

Equity and Equality are terms that are easily confused with each other but understanding each one’s definition and their relationship with each other is essential.

Our goal in this lesson is to develop our definition of these terms and how to model them for ourselves and others. Our objective is also to connect these definitions with how they are interpreted by political candidates as they campaign for office.

Objectives

● Define equality

● Define equity

● Identify how these concepts affect student’s lives in ways they can relate to

● Connect, when appropriate, how the political candidates use these terms in the

election process and when communicating to voters.

Materials

● Equity vs Equality image

● Paper and pens 
● Phones and computers 

Time: 30 minutes

Purpose: To define equality and equity

Materials: Equity & Equality Images

Divide groups into groups of 3 or 4 and display this image. 

Discussion Questions 

● What do you notice about these two photos? 

● What is the difference between them? What is the same? 

● How might the images make you think differently about the words underneath? 

● What do you notice about the physical objects in the photo? 

How do they relate to the experience each person is having? 

Bring the students back together as one group and ask them to share some of their individual group’s insights with the larger group.

Now let’s get clear with words.

Looking back at the image labeled Equality.

● How is each person able or not able to participate?

● How do you think each person in this scenario is feeling?

● How does having “equal” access and resources impact each person?

● Is having equal things in this scenario more or less fair?

According to the dictionary, equality is treating everyone the same. 

When people use this term they tend to talk about fairness.

In our own words, how would we like to define equality?

Write students' answers on the board.

What are some challenges that can come up between people when equality is used to

view situations?

Looking back at the image labeled Equity.

● Why is each person able or not able to participate?

● What had to happen to achieve equity?

● Think about the resources each person has, how did those have to change

based on each person’s needs?

● What would be the easiest way to make this situation equitable for everyone?

● Is equity more or less fair?

The dictionary defines equity as giving everyone what they need to be successful.

When people use this term they tend to talk about justice.

In our own words, how would we like to define equity? Write students' answers on the board.

Separate the group into smaller groups (four students per group is ideal) or as an

individual reflection have students think, discuss, and write about three of the following

questions.

● Why do we need to know the difference between these two words?

● Why do you think people confuse these two words so often?

● Why might these words be important to a school? And to you as students?

● Can you think of other examples of people being treated with equity that led to them being able to succeed?

● Can you think of an example of how treating someone with Equality might not actually be fair or may limit their success?

● Can you think of ways your school or community could work to be more equitable?

Time: 15 minutes

Purpose: Connect concepts of equality and equity to the presidential election

Materials: Phones or laptops for research

For the next ten minutes, look up campaign information or posts from a presidential

candidate(s) and answer the following questions:

● How is equity and equality showing up in the current (or past) Presidential election?

● How is the candidate talking about these concepts?

● Do you believe them? If so, why? If not, why not?

● How do you think the candidates who are currently running for office apply these

terms to their political positions?

Ticket Out the Door

1) Identify a friendship or relationship in your life that you believe is equitable.

2) Identify a political candidate or campaign that uses the words equality or equity in a

similar manner as we discussed in class today.

Reveal

“Pushed Out”

hosted by Al Letson

PRX.org

November 2019

Black girls are being pushed out of school and into jails at alarming rates, but this issue often is overlooked because youth incarceration reform focuses so much on boys. Reporter Ko Bragg explains how the cycle begins and what researchers hope will break it.

I have listened to Reveal for a few years now. Al Letson does a great job of bringing controversial topics to the Podcast and wields his incredible storytelling style to draw the audience in deeply to his flow. “Pushed Out” reveals disturbing stories of the “school to prison pipeline” that more people need to be aware of in this country. What is of particular interest in this story is how there is a gender inequity / injustice going on that does not get the mainstream attention it deserves. Letson states that “black girls receive suspensions at 6 times more than white girls” in public schools in America today. Why? This is the question we should all be examining. Reporter Ko Bragg cites that “black girls are being pushed out of school” because of

“the way they wear their hair,” “wearing beads in their hair and making too much noise,” and wearing “provocative” clothing. I would like to use this lesson in my class because it is relevant right now in our world. I would love to get reactions from students after listening to this podcast. This episode is accessible to young people as it is only about 11 minutes long. It could actually fit into a live classroom group listen followed by a deep discussion with the class. Young women could learn a lot just by being aware of this practice. Young men could learn a lot from this too. Bragg states that by pushing young black girls out of school we are creating a “recipe for some bad things” to happen in this world. No one really wants that consequence. Young people need to know that they belong in school. I agree with Letson when he says that “the adults in the room have to change.” We need to “see children as children” as we do our best to make sure all of them have the chance at a valid and relevant education that prepares them to go on to a beautiful life.

Afterward Response

If I were to write my own version of “Lies,” I would include a whole bunch of rhetoric and civil discourse training. Before students can really handle sifting through the material, they all need to understand how information is used and directed. Once a student can approach a piece of information with the proper tools to dissect it academically, civil discourse can be used to have discussions with peers and teachers. Too often these days it seems that people are quick to join teams and call names without taking in all of the information. Too much trust has been put with people of “my team” which leads to narrow views of the information. My personal education in history through high school was awful. I take a lot of responsibility for that as I was a disruptive student. However, in college believe that I was able to have a second chance. At CSUS, I was challenged to reflect on all that I had learned previously. I was so challenged and stimulated academically that I actually went on to get a Master’s Degree in Education with a Multi-Cultural Emphasis. I had a diverse panel of instructors and an extremely diverse collection of colleagues (student peers). I do think that it was sadly far too late to find the correct information. We as educators need to provide a better look at history while students are young. The entire system needs a significant overhaul. I am not sure why, but it shocks me every time to see how certain states/regions of America still embrace such archaic thoughts about race and culture. This has been supported in my personal life as I travel around the country and see firsthand the separations that still exist in 2021 across this land. It is puzzling. While there seems to be quite a lot of progress (especially way out west in Califonia), there are vast sections of the country that are still living in the days of the confederacy. This has revealed itself quite a lot over the past several years especially during the last presidential election. I suppose what is affirming is that the tools to undo lies are becoming more and more available to the people of the country. It is quite possible for students to quickly search for information and fact-check affirmations in an instant. I see this happening in real-time during class all of the time. It is great. While “Lies” was written some years ago, the optimistic take that there is hope for young people to have access to the whole truth is a reality. It will take a lot of hard work and a bit of shaking up the old ways of thinking, but school kids do have a chance and that will be great for all of us.

Loewen notes that only 3 percent of executives and financiers in America around the turn of the century started as poor immigrants or farm children while 95 percent of them came from upper-class and upper-middle-class back-grounds. Did this surprise you? Why do you think the rags-to-riches story has persisted despite historical fact? (p. 213) Although it wasn't shocking to me that 95% of American financiers at the turn of the century came from upper/upper-middle class, seeing the actual statistics (assuming they're accurate) are compelling and thought provoking.  In contrast, I think the rags-to-riches narrative has persisted because it fits the heroification archetype that Loewen writes about.  I do wonder about the attraction to this archetype across social classes. Presumably portrayal in the media is financed by the upper-middle class-those who have the time and resources  to write books and produce films, and the rags-to-riches story is one they are drawn to. For lower social classes, is there a similar draw because the archetype inspires hopefulness? Or does it only bring about hopelessness when the archetype doesn't play out for all people?

adventurers on a mission. According to Loewen, why do authors assert that earlier settlers were less civilized? This type of thought process was due to not wanting to change the way history has been discussed and written over the years. People wanted to stress that settlers were more advanced than the natives, who were then thought to be savages. This portrayal has been instilled in most textbooks, even though it is false.

Loewen defines “syncretism” as taking elements from two (or more) cultures to form something new. He says it is “how cultures typically change and survive.” Had you heard of the term? I have never heard of this term until now. I do think it is true through, especially when cultures are clashing/blending together to live in harmony. 

When Loewen speaks to Native Americans, he emphasizes syncretism as the way out for Native youth to avoid having to “choose” between “Western culture” and “Indian culture,” both of which, 

he points out, are already syncretic. Do you think choosing both is possible? I do think choosing both is possible if done correctly. One should not forget the important cultural aspects of their first culture just to blend in with another. If they can blend them both equally then yes I think it is possible.

Loewen takes issue with the fact that multinational companies like Walmart or Mitsubishi are not mentioned in American textbooks because they influence US policy. For example, students may "find their job eliminated by multinationals" that move factories to Third World countries where citizens are paid much less. Beyond was students might experience personally, Loewen says that Walmart and Mitsubishi have "budgets larger than those of most governments," causing national economies to "become obsolete" and posing a threat to national autonomy in small nations as well as the US. He argues complex interweaving of economic and political interests and that textbooks don't include multinationals because they don't fit the "international good guy" approach.

Christopher Stevens for the Daily Mail. “Is This Proof the Virgin Queen Was an Imposter in Drag? Shocking New Theory about Elizabeth I Unearthed in Historic Manuscripts.” Daily Mail Online. Associated Newspapers, 08 June 2013. Web. 09 Aug. 2017.

Plowden, Alison. The Young Elizabeth. Stroud, Glouchestershire: History, 2011. Print.

Stoker, Bram. Famous Imposters. Place of Publication Not Identified: Rareclub Com, 2012. Print.

Weir, Alison. Elizabeth, the Queen. London: Vintage, 2009. Print.

The broadcaster looks at the conspiracy theories that resulted in this scandal and asks why a woman who clearly bought about incredible artistic and political achievement during her reign could have been so maligned and asked why female leaders have to deal with these incredible stories--as if they aren't able as women to navigate complicated political landscapes.  

I thoroughly enjoyed the podcast and am eagerly looking forward to Thanksgiving Break to listen to more. I think that I will use this podcast to supplement my literature curriculum with the historical figures during the literary periods. The content can be used to not only deepen my knowledge but to engage the students on much more animated level. The information is easily digestible and can align with standards easily.

Janus ruling made you more curious about the history of workers’ rights in the United States? It did not make me more curious due to being involved with multiple unions and work over the years. I think more people need to know the pros and cons to unions and how they can impact their workplace (good and bad at times)

What losses do students face in school and civic life when history books omit terms like class, social stratification, income distribution, or inequality? Students will lose out on learning important facts about social justices or how they and anyone can be successful (even when faced with inequalities). 

less civilized? What are the implications of this kind of history? (p. 97)
Authors assert that earlier settlers were less civilized as a means of exulting America, attempting to instill a false sense of pride or strength in our country.  The implications of this kind of history are negative, encouraging an "us and them" philosophy as well as implying that one group is better or more knowing than another when in reality the opposite may actually be true.
2. Loewen defines “syncretism” as taking elements from two (or more) cultures to form something new. He says it is “how cultures typically change and survive.” Had you heard of the term? Might learning it help decrease Americans’ ethnocentrism?
I have not heard of "syncretism" before reading this book. Learning this concept may definitely help decrease Americans' ethnocentrism because it encourages cultures to learn about one another, inspiring commonality which may result in unity and connections.

he points out, are already syncretic. Do you think choosing both is possible?
While is may seem to an outsider that choosing both "Western culture" and "Indian culture" may be possible at first, I can't imagine that it would be easy as there are influences and judgments from others on both sides. For youth experiencing peer pressure and developing their identity, it may be extremely difficult to be "both" when so much trauma and damage have been caused by western culture in history.

2. Loewen states that there are two legacies of slavery that persist in contemporary American society. What are they and what ideology does Loewen state is tied to these legacies? Have you observed these at work in your own communities? (pp. 142–146).
The two legacies that Loewen states that persist in contemporary American society are "the social and economic inferiority it conferred upon blacks and the cultural racism it instilled in whites" (143). The ideology that Loewen states are tied to these legacies is a continuation of racism.  I have observed this at work in my community as well as where I teach.
3. Loewen describes his shocking encounter with students discussing their opinion of the Reconstruction era. Did this anecdote surprise you? Why or why not?
The shocking encounter with students discussing the Reconstruction era did not surprise me because more and more students I teach seem "removed" from history, not finding it meaningful to who they are now or who they want to become. It doesn't connect to the social media and other forms of entertainment they absorb and so they "get through" their history courses, but don't really understand or connect to what they are learning.
4. Loewen points out that few American textbooks include photographs of lynchings or other acts of white violence and terrorism against black people. Do you think they should?
I think that textbooks should include photographs of lynchings or other acts of white violence and terrorism against ALL people because these images and stories are no worse than what our students are already seeing on the internet in their gaming, social media and internet surfing.  for students to view these images alongside primary sources and supported narratives, they may take history more seriously as well as appreciate the need to not repeat history in many incidences.

Why does Loewen take issue with the fact that multinational companies like Walmart or Mitsubishi are not mentioned in American textbooks? 
Multinational companies that are not mentioned is due to them having more power and money than most governments. They can move facilities over seas, thus taking jobs away from workers in the US, which does not tend well with the "good guy approach" that our Government is trying to uphold. Also, these companies sway our government due to monies being contributed to certain campaigns etc.

John Brown is portrayed as sane today in textbooks. His portrayal follows our current political climate in the United States that is very sensitive to racism. If he was portrayed as insane, it would make slavery look acceptable since he was accused of the felonious acts of helping slaves escape.
2. Textbooks often cite states’ rights as a key reason for secession. According to Loewen, this is flatly wrong. What is the present-day view on the origins of the Confederacy? What mythology was the Confederacy founded on?
The present-day view on the origins of the Confederacy is one uses delicate language so as not to offend.  "White Southerners founded the Confederacy on the idealogy of white supremacy" (193). Racism was the foundation, but our textbooks downplay the reality of the situation. 

2. Have the recent teacher strikes and Janus ruling made you more curious about the history of workers’ rights in the United States?
When I was in my second year teaching, my union helped facilitate a teacher strike which actually helped me from getting laid off due to budget cuts.  Since then, I have always valued workers' rights and its history.
3. What losses do students face in school and civic life when history books omit terms like class, social stratification, income distribution, or inequality? What is the risk that textbook authors face if they discuss social class?
When these terms are omitted from history books, students do not have an opportunity to learn about the inequities that exist in the labor market.  They may simply believe that if they work hard enough, they may purchase or become anything they want. This myth of the American dream may be the only narrative they learn.
4. Why does Loewen take issue with defining everyone as part of the middle class? How would you define middle class?
Loewen takes issue with defining everyone as part of the middle class because it is shrinking due to our economy and how it is being run. There is becoming more and more and small upper class and a very large lower class.

historical fact? (p. 213)
This news about the rags-to-riches narratives of executives and financiers does not surprise me because they would not have been able to have been so successful without the assistance of economic and social mobility.  Loewen cites numerous examples in which we see how these factors assist with social class and success.  The rags-to-riches story may have persisted because not only is it fun to tell to motivate others to work hard and remain dedicated, but it also again gives credit to America further instilling the heroism myth.

1. What are the two approaches that college courses and textbooks take when analyzing U.S. actions overseas? What are the effects of these views? (pp. 221–223)
The first approach says that America has been the most powerful nation on earth. The second approach says "we have 50% of the world's wealth and only 6.3% of its population" (221). The effect of these views is instilling a false sense of pride as well as the idea that almost anyone can have access to America's wealth.
2. Describe the “international good guy” view of the United States government. How does this view correspond with the image of the government that Loewen has constructed over the course of previous chapters?
The "international good guy" view is an idea where "America acts on behalf of human rights, democracy, and the 'American way' (221). This view corresponds with the image of the government that Loewen has constructed over the course of the chapters in which America is portrayed in textbooks as the hero, all-knowing, all-doing, all-able.  It instills a false sense of pride and sends a message to other nations that America is egotistical and greedy.

3. Why does Loewen take issue with the fact that multinational companies like Walmart or Mitsubishi are not mentioned in American textbooks? (p. 224)
By not including these companies that truly do exist and affect multiple economies and nations, textbooks see these multinational companies as "a threat to national autonomy (224).

evidence and arguments regarding pre-Columbian explorers—including those from Phoenicia, 

Africa, Siberia, and elsewhere. I  think this kind of historical education would have positive on students in school and in civic life as they promote "human possibility" or "the prowess of a multiracial society." Representation of all races and their contributions is valuable in promoting equity and inclusion for all students.
When textbooks leave out the firsthand accounts of violent subjugation of Natives into slavery, for both labor and sex, they keep us unaware of important questions and perpetuate the likelihood of identifying with the oppressor. When they leave out Las Casas, they deprive us of identifying with an idealist. Everyone whose story is omitted is offended.

seventeenth century. Not only did they wipe out 95% of Native populations, they reinforced the "God is on our Side" belief system of supremacy that allowed European domination to persist. 
I have been learning for years more and more of the truth behind the myth of Thanksgiving. I had heard about the censorship of Frank James speech and that it is a Day of Mourning for so many. Like Columbus Day, I have been searching for meaningful ways to relate to these Holidays. I like how Loewen proposes the idea of the value of controversy as a way to pose questions that open the door to being more thoughtful and tolerant.

Knowing what you know now, and having seen or revisited these photographs, has your opinion on the war and the politics of it changed?
Before reading this chapter, I knew much about the Vietnam war.  I had seen the photographs mentioned.  From the chapter and the information about the photographs, my opinion remains the same and my politics have not changed.  I see it in the same way I see the war with Iraq.  Both wars did not need US involvement and the consequences of getting involved outlast any positive effects if any the US involvement may have made. 

2. If you are familiar with photographs and stories of the Vietnam War, how do you feel about these being omitted from textbooks? What do you feel present-day students are missing out on?
I did find it very interesting to learn about these photographs, their power to endure despite the fact that textbooks continue to omit them. I agree with Loewen that these five images "made history, prompting news stories and changing the way the viewers around the world understood the conflict" (248).  With very little context about who and what may be involved, the pictures invoke emotion.  People may not remember what they are told, but they don't forget how something makes them feel.  This is the power of these photographs. By not having access to these photographs, students are missing out on an element of history that may draw them in, engage them, connect to them or help them gain an understanding and possibly develop empathy.

3. Why might publishers avoid including photographs of the Vietnam War in particular?
Publishers may avoid including photographs of the Vietnam War because they cause controversy. They spark questions about why, who, and sometimes these answers do not paint America or its leaders in a positive light. "Fear of controversy" and the fear of a possible loss of textbook sales waters down the selection of photographs and therefore information provided (257).

4. How has the mystification of the Vietnam War informed discussions of contemporary war and violence in the United States, according to Loewen? Have you observed this personally, regarding the discussion of the war in Iraq?
The mystification of the Vietnam War has led to the questioning and doubt of our leaders in more recent military involvements such as the war in Iraq.  People wonder who to trust, what information is being censored and "unfortunately, censorship is the cause, not the remedy, of confusion about the war" (250).

1. Loewen discusses the American “faith in progress,” in particular regarding the usage of the terms “developed” and “developing nations” in textbooks. Did Loewen’s critique on progress and development challenge your notion of history? (p. 284)
Loewen's critique on progress and development did not challenge my notion of history.  I agree with him that "the archetype of progress has been losing its grip" (284).  How can we assume that things are going to get better when our planet faces such devastating climate change? Also, despite some social progress, there are always the concerns of economic challenges especially when one considers the national debt, population, medical costs and now airborne viruses like COVID-19.

(pp. 290–294)
Loewen suggests a change in history textbooks could affect the current climate crisis by ceasing the "siren song of progress" (295). We need to educate our young people about the realities of what is happening and have them begin learning as much as possible about science and climate to begin troubleshooting this issue now, not when they are grown and may just begin learning about it. We need to present accurate and unbiased information that does not gloss over the detrimental effects that climate change is having on all life on earth and will affect later.

1. Loewen outlines multiple sources for the inaccuracies of the American textbook, including publishers, authors, and local and state curriculum adoption boards. Based on the arguments Loewen provided, which of these sources do you find most credible and why? (pp. 307–308)
The sources for the inaccuracies of the American textbook that I find most credible are the authors and the local and state curriculum adoption boards. If authors wrote more accurately, our students would have a more balanced history. If local and state adoption boards refused to adopt until a textbook publisher presented textbooks that were more accurate, our students would not be in this predicament.

1. Loewen claims that emotion “is the glue that causes history to stick,” but rote memorization leaves students “with no resources to understand, accept, or rebut historical referents used in arguments” by political candidates, professors, or journalists. In the current-age of “alternative facts,” what do you feel would make students more capable and equipped to discern truth from lies? (p. 342)
Teachers need to not only teach to the Common Core, but they need to include lessons that teach the skill of critical thinking, how to fact-check and question what is presented.

2. In school, did the narrative of “the exceptional fairness of America” rub you the wrong way? If not, did Loewen’s argument convince you that it should have? (p. 344)
In school, the narrative of "the exception of fairness of America" rubbed me the wrong way because all I had to do was look around my world and I could see that things are not fair based on race, gender and economics.  I remember getting my first real job and later learning that a male coworker who had the same job and was hired at the same time as me was hired making more money per hour than me. I also felt that I only learned about "white America" in high school. When I began college, I was excited to take course on women's history and African American history.

version of Lies, what would you include?
If I were writing my own version of Lies, I would not only include a section on the lack of teaching of climate change, but also about the inaccuracies in voting rights and laws in our country.

2. Before reading the book, did you feel your education in history was sufficient and/or historically accurate? If so, did reading the book challenge this?
Before reading this book, I did not feel that my education in history was sufficient and/or historically accurate. I am aware of the inaccuracies and also the lack of teaching that exists in the educational system. Reading this book affirmed what I already felt was true. It has inspired me to go a little deeper in my English classes in my lessons about history that I teach prior to my class reading a book such as Night by Elie Wiesel or To Kill a Mockingbiird by Harper Lee.

3. After reading the book, what were the points that Loewen made that you found the most shocking? What were the points that were most affirming?
The points that Loewen made that were most shocking were the blatant attempts to downplay or water down America's involvement in the atrocities of Vietnam and the war with Iraq. It is one thing to not mention something and make America seem a hero above all nations, but it is entirely different to imply little involvement or blame when there is so much evidence to prove the contrary. The points that were the most affirming is that the poor condition of American history books are due to not only the authors who write them, publishers who accept and publish them, but also school boards who adopt them. Until these three entities change their methods, our students will continue to suffer inaccuracies in their history education.

How does Loewen suggest a change in history textbooks could affect the current climate crisis? 

By changing how current text books are written and how we should look at historically correct data, could change the way students think and respond to current world situations.

In school, did the narrative of “the exceptional fairness of America” rub you the wrong way? If not, did Loewen’s argument convince you that it should have? The narrative did rub me wrong because recent history has shown that not everyone has the same education due to race, economic status and general biases.

through arguments and evidence and make reasoned judgments. If you were writing your own version of Lies, what would you include? I would make sure that my version was written with as many cultural background inputs and factual work and not include beliefs or judgements based on personal beliefs. 

Before reading the book, did you feel your education in history was sufficient and/or historically accurate? If so, did reading the book challenge this? After reading the book I found that my education in history was not accurate as I once thought. This book opened my eyes to ideas that I never thought about, thus making me realize how different my understanding of history would have been if I was taught a different way back in school.

After reading the book, what were the points that Loewen made that you found the most shocking? What were the points that were most affirming? The point that facts were clearly left out in history so one could look like they were "great leaders" was alarming to me.

What I remember from high school is that the Vietnam War was a conflict in the late 60s, at the height of the Cold War.  It was a war to stop the spread of communism and to ensure democracy thrived in this region, further spreading American values.  I also learned it was a devastating war that was traumatic for soldiers.  Unfortunately, I don’t remember learning much about the war.  I had seen those photographs, but I do feel like I saw them in a college course, and not in grade school. 

I feel the same way about these photographs as I did in a previous chapter about the photographs of lynchings: they should be included, but with care.  I am actually not sure a textbook is the best place for them.  My reasoning is that not all teachers go from cover to cover of a textbook.  These images should be in a book that students might flip through out of boredom.  They should be delivered after careful introduction in a safe classroom setting.  Maybe there could be a textbook material by the publisher that includes these primary sources with a guide of how to introduce them.  I do feel students today miss out on some of the human aspects of history, including wars like the Vietnam War.  These stories and images would bring to light the reality that people, real humans, were affected by these events that are often glossed over.

These might avoid including Vietnam War photographs because it is viewed as a controversial war.  They are treading lightly, making sure not to choose sides with the different interpretations of the war.  “So which interpretation do they choose?  None of the above!  Most textbooks simply dodge the issue” (pg. 255).

I enjoyed Loewen’s comparison of the terms from African society for categorizing humans with textbook authors including recent history in the textbooks.  I understand their challenge and weariness of including much from the recent past.  Many people are much more opinionated on whether the United States should be at war today than whether we should have entered war with Britain in 1812.  This makes sense.  It is much easier to disagree and for all objectivity to disappear when you have lived through an event.  Therefore, textbook authors fear offending various groups that have a role in adopting their textbook, and thus, giving them their paycheck.  Another challenge is that teachers rarely finish covering cover-to-cover in a given year.

There are, however, some benefits to having lived through the recent past and including it in the textbook.  First, these authors have likely been able to gather much more evidence and information about the event.  “Second, multiple points of view are available, each backed by evidence, more or less convincing” (pg. 264).  Finally, because of the research they are able to conduct, they are able to make the chapters on the recent past more engaging with stories that might help draw students’ attention.

 In the podcast at the beginning of this book study, Loewen mentions that the greatest lie in American history textbooks is that America started out great, and only got greater.  I enjoyed Loewen’s connection to this point on page 295 when he essentially writes that the treatment of environmental issues is so limited because it would directly contradict America’s “greatness” that had been built up over several hundred pages.    

Loewen points out that so many textbooks avoid addressing environmental problems.  The issue with this is that it seems like there is no energy or climate crisis.  After reading this chapter, I researched and found a website that I want to supplement in my Civil War unit, which addresses the impact of the whaling on the environment.  Students are really interested in these issues and I think history teachers and textbooks can do a much better job including them in our units.  

I believe the common threads are the publishers and the authors.  Sure, local and state boards absolutely play a role, but as Loewen mentioned, these boards are so different throughout the United States.  Tennessee and Alabama are polar opposites on this matter.  

I enjoyed Loewen’s point about students reading Harry Potter, but not enjoying the unreadable clutter that exists in the American history textbooks.  I was on the latest adoption committee for San Juan, and I remember specifically thinking all about how some of these textbooks are so “pretty” and visually appealing.  However, they still aren’t doing the job.  Besides the publishers and their marketing team, the issue also remains that the textbook authors.  As we learned throughout this book, there are reasons why Vietnam and other topics are similarly dismissed.  Topics can remain too controversial.  Also, authors can insert their own biases, even in a subtle way.  

At the root of my teaching history, I believe source analysis is the most important strategy we can use.  When analyzing primary and secondary sources, usually the first step for student is to complete the sourcing: who wrote this, what was their title, what might have influenced their opinion, etc.  This still can then be transferred to students if done frequently enough.  Students catch on to routine very quickly.  If enough historical sources are analyzed, we can then move on to analyzing current event articles.  By this point, it is our hope that students would be able to discern truths from lies just because they will be asking the right questions.

For the most part, I believe my education in history was sufficient.  However, I don’t believe sufficient is good enough.  The topic that Loewen truly pinned as being so poorly taught was the chapter on Vietnam.  I always attributed it to my general disinterest in the subject, therefore, I didn’t think I paid enough attention.  However, I am realizing now that I probably lack interest due to the lack of education on the topic.  

I do think that I was taught a slightly more accurate version of history then some of Loewen’s chapters indicated (I attended a public high school in the early 2000s).  For example, I do think my history teachers did a good job teaching about American Indians.  Granted, I know this is a critique of the textbooks, but in all honesty, I hardly remember any of my school textbooks.  Even though I remember learning about Native Americans, and I believe in a way that shaped my respect for all cultures, I didn’t realize some of the nuances that were inserted into my instruction.  For instance, I never learned the implications of being taught that the indigenous people who populated North America came by foot and “stumbled upon” this new continent.  I do believe that it’s small nuances like this that subconsciously cement the thought of superiority vs. inferiority- thankfully one that never grabbed ahold of me.

This book has prompted much analysis of my own education, and I only hope what I have learned can guide my future lessons and use of the U.S. history textbook I use to teach.

The specific chapter that was the most shocking to me was Loewen’s arguments about labor unions and social classes and their representation in history textbooks.  I never looked at those topics as being controversial or poorly taught.  

Having joined the pilot team for our latest HSS textbook adoption, I cannot believe I had never thought about the adoption process beyond the room I was in.  I never thought about why these textbooks were written the way they were, and more importantly, who they were written by!

What are the two approaches that college courses and textbooks take when analyzing U.S. actions overseas? What are the effects of these views? (pp. 221–223)

One approach is the American Colossus that America "now typically act to repress the legitimate attempts at self-determination of other countries" (221) and the realpolitik to maintain disparity and as an "American good guy view" this seems to be international gaslighting where Americans are trying to control other countries and America's efforts are just "Misunderstood" when they aren't appreciated.
Describe the “international good guy” view of the United States government. How does this view correspond with the image of the government that Loewen has constructed over the course of previous chapters? Loewen has shared how textbooks omit facts or change what actually happened and the "peacekeeping burden" that America is 'obligated' to 'suffer' but 20 European and other Arab cultures "devote much larger portions of their GDP...to foreign aid than does the United States"

Why does Loewen take issue with the fact that multinational companies like Walmart or Mitsubishi are not mentioned in American textbooks? (p. 224) He says "Mulitnationals may represent a threat to national autonomy" these companies may send us to war for their interests, impact our economy and impact every aspect of our country, how many conversations does anyone have without their iphone in the room, when was the last time someone had a conversation that they didn't have advertising pop up on their phone about. (An NPR guy talked about how he was getting pregnant in front of his phone to test how long before his phone started to advertise to him about pregnancy products (it took less than one day). Iphones have more data about us then we understand..

less civilized? What are the implications of this kind of history? (p. 97)

They do it for many reasons, one quote that stood out to me was "this is a secular form of predestination: historians observe that people's were conquered and come up with reasons why that was right. In sociology we call this 'blaming the victim'." It is easier to justify what we have done, if we are doing it to a less civilized group. Then we can cast ourselves in the savior role, rather than the aggressor. We can say that they needed us, or that we were helping them. It makes it easier to justify what we have done. The implications are that we lose our history. We lose truth. We lose the ability to learn from our mistakes and make better choices in the future. 

learning it help decrease Americans’ ethnocentrism? 

I have heard of the term and I think that learning it would be key to decreasing American's ethnocentrism. We made Native American culture sound primitive and ours superior so that we could justify what we did, but Loewen points out that the earlier settlers practiced this - they took many ideas and practices from the Native American's. We just don't talk about it now as much, but that is how cultures survive and how we survived. If we actually taught this in schools our society would be much healthier.

When Loewen speaks to Native Americans, he emphasizes syncretism as the way out for Native 

he points out, are already syncretic. Do you think choosing both is possible

I think it was easier in the past than it is now. But still possible. As he points out, both are already syncretic. A lot of who we are today is influenced by native american culture. And we are continuing to incorporate other cultures, as they move here and become a part of America, so yes I think it is still possible.

On what grounds does Loewen make these claims, and why did this change occur? Do you feel this has changed the way slavery is understood in public discourse?

He says that with the civil rights movement, between 1955 to 1970, African Americans won more power.  And now those in power, to write textbooks and promote them in the schools include more African Americans and white Americans who. have "cast off the ideology of white supremacy."  Which is interesting that history which should be factual is actually very much affected by when and who is writing it. Textbooks can now dedicate more space to the topic of slavery and give an accurate portrayal. It does change the way slavery is viewed, absolutely. Clearly we are influenced by what we read and how it is presented. That is why we are still struggling with racism. We have addressed slavery, but as Loewen points out, we still downplay slavery and make it a sectional rather than a national problem. We "minimize white complicity." He goes on to say, that they remain silent on HOW it affected America and still does. We cannot acknowledge that anything might be wrong with "white America." That is why racism is still alive and well today and we are still struggling with the race issue.  So yes the way that slavery is understood has changed, but we have still not addressed the real issue. We portray it as something horrible that happened in the past and do not tie it back to the injustice that is happening today. 

Loewen states that there are two legacies of slavery that persist in contemporary American society. What are they and what ideology does Loewen state is tied to these legacies? Have you 

observed these at work in your own communities? (pp. 142–146)

They are social and economic inferiority. The ideology is that it is appropriate for whites to be superior. That the domination of the African race came about because we were smarter. The history of slavery is what is tied to Racism today. That lingering sense of superiority that whites developed to justify slavery plays out daily in racism. Yes, look at George Floyd, Brianna Taylor, etc. all the police statistics, our last president. Proud Boys. We are still locked into this idea that white's are superior.

Loewen describes his shocking encounter with students discussing their opinion of the Reconstruction era. Did this anecdote surprise you? Why or why not?

It did not, clearly as this book is demonstrating we manipulate history and we have changed the truth of what happened during the Reconstruction and the reasons behind it. As Loewen said earlier we don't like to mess with the narrative of white America. 

of white violence and terrorism against black people. Do you think they should?

As much as I don't like graphic images, pictures can speak a 1000 words, look at Ahmaud Arbery. Until the video was posted no action was being taken. The video is the reason that justice was served and people took action. We need to understand what happened and a picture is part of that. We need to stop shying away from the messy parts of history.

It is interesting that John Brown was not chosen for the path of heroification. He could have easily been portrayed as a hero for the cause of freedom. He is instead remembered as insane and a religious zealot and not for the intelligent man he was who believed so passionately in a cause he was willing to die for it in the hopes of furthering said cause. The narrative that is told about him shows that we still struggle with racism.

Textbooks often cite states’ rights as a key reason for secession. According to Loewen, this is flatly wrong. What is the present-day view on the origins of the Confederacy? What mythology 

was the Confederacy founded on?

I found that very interesting because first growing up I was told the civil war was all about slavery. Then as I got older,  I heard more and more that it was much more complex, that there were many issues at play with states rights being a major one. I thought that was the enlightened and educated view, to be able to look at the complexities and see that it wasn't black and white, so it is interesting to see that really it was all about slavery. Also shows me, how much even in my lifetime, history can be rewritten. 

The confederacy was founded on the ideology of white supremacy.

a voice in the workplace? (pp. 205–206)

I found the quote, "with such omissions, textbook authors can construe labor history as something that happened long ago, like slavery, and that, like slavery, was corrected long ago."  I think that sums up the answer to this question. It is interesting how it all ties together, the issues we ignore, downplay, or make to not seem relevant are the ones we continue to struggle with today.  I do think many people realize that we need a voice, but the general public opinion is not overwhelmingly in favor. 

Have the recent teacher strikes and 

Janus ruling made you more curious about the history of workers’ rights in the United States? What losses do students face in school and civic life when history books omit terms like class, social stratification, income distribution, or inequality? What is the risk that textbook authors face if they discuss social class? 

I enjoy learning history because it does teach us so much about the present, so yes definitely curious. Students face many losses, we do not understand our society today. We do not understand that we have problems that need to be fixed. We do not stand up for ourselves and the wealthy continue to take the power and money and we stay poor. If textbook authors discuss class, Loewen states that they run the risk of being called Marxist. They also run the risk of the text book not being accepted. 

He takes issue because the middle class is shrinking.  As the cost of things rise and income stays the same or decreases for most of the population and the wealthy keep passing laws to favor them, we have less and less of a middle class. It is a lie that will hurt Americans, who keep thinking they are middle class, because they are told they are, but cannot afford the basic necessity's.  It is a safe approach that does not bring up the important issues of stratification, class structure, income distribution, inequality, or any other topic. 

Middle class, is when you have enough to live comfortably. When you can save a bit, meet all your bills, live in a safe and comfortable home. When you do not have to stress about money and do not live paycheck to paycheck. 

Contrary to the rags-to-riches narratives told in textbooks, Loewen notes that only 3 percent of executives and financiers in America around the turn of the century started as poor immigrants 

It did a bit, I guess I always bought into the rags to riches idea, but I do understand why it has persisted, it makes us all work harder. If they can do it, we can to. If we were told that it was nearly impossible then the rich wouldn't have their worker bees. It is a necessary story.

Describe the “international good guy” view of the United States government. How does this view correspond with the image of the government that Loewen has constructed over the course of previous chapters? Why does Loewen take issue with the fact that multinational companies like Walmart or Mitsubishi are not mentioned in American textbooks? (p. 224)

The two approaches are being critical - the US is the most powerful nation and has worked to maintain it's power. We have abandoned our revolutionary ideology and now act to repress other nations freedom. 
 
Or the more common, realpolitik view. Under this view we identify our interests and then act to further those. 

History books it seems though generally take on the idea that America is always acting on a moral agenda, furthering democracy, human rights, etc. The "good guy" view. This does not jive with what we have learned in previous chapters and Loewen goes on to explain in detail how our interference in foreign affairs was done always in our best interest, not in the interest of the country. I remember traveling through Guatemala years ago and reading about how the US interference just destroyed the country and I was so mad. Yet, we don't ever read about it in our country because we don't want to counter the good guy narrative, but we destroyed a democratic government in the interest of a corporation. How insane is that? 

He takes issue because those companies are affecting us and our world. When we try to think about the issues raised by the interweaving of our political and economic interests, we need the information on these multinationals and yet we do not have it.

-

Knowing what you know now, and having seen or revisited these photographs, has your opinion on the war and the politics of it changed?

I have always known that war was a horrible thing where we did horrible things and that is why we do not talk about it because what we did was so bad.

If you are familiar with photographs and stories of the Vietnam War, how do you feel about these being omitted from textbooks?

I wish every student could go to that museum that I went to and see the truth. We need to not shy away from what we have done but own it and say we will never allow it to happen again.

What do you feel present-day students are missing out on?

The truth. Understand all of our current political decisions regarding wars. Understand our history. Understanding the effect the war had on the US and Vietnam. I have visited those countries and they are still haunted by that war. The aftereffects are far from over. They are missing out on a huge piece of history. 

Why might publishers avoid including photographs of the Vietnam War in particular?

They are controversial. They raise questions that the textbook authors don't want to answer. They raise emotions and tell a story that the authors are not prepared to deal with. 

How has the mystification of the Vietnam War informed discussions of contemporary war and violence in the United States, according to Loewen? Have you observed this personally, regarding discussion of the war in Iraq?

It has left students unable to understand much of the political discourse since then. Without understanding Vietnam they cannot understand what politicians are talking about when they refer to the "lessons of Vietnam" in considering interfering in other wars. I feel like I have always had a better grasp of the Vietnam war because I choose to study it and have traveled so extensively, so I did understand the parallels to Iraq. 

Loewen discusses the American “faith in progress,” in particular regarding the usage of the terms “developed” and “developing nations” in textbooks. Did Loewen’s critique on progress and development challenge your notion of history? (p. 284)

He made me look at what does Progress really mean? Does it come at the expense of those "developing nations.'"  All of America's so called progress came at the expense of others who we conquered, destroyed, or manipulated for our gain and advancement. So, yes, it did challenge my notion of history. I learned that history is fluid. Not rigid. That we are given facts to support the view of the "developed nation" that may not be accurate. That may be manipulated, omitted, or changed to benefit the most advantageous viewpoint.

(pp. 290–294)

The textbooks want to present a happy and upbeat picture. They do not present the very real dangers that the climate crisis presents and by doing so, it leaves us without the knowledge or tools to save ourselves.

Loewen outlines multiple sources for the inaccuracies of the American textbook, including publishers, authors, and local and state curriculum adoption boards. Based on the arguments Loewen provided, which of these sources do you find most credible and why? (pp. 307–308)

The textbook adoption boards are what cause the most problem - it is similar to when trying to pass a bill. Everyone has to compromise or add stuff in to make everyone happy and in the end you have nothing that resembles the original bill. When we have to cater to adoption boards, and conservatives who want to push their agenda and storyline, the truth gets lost. Look at is what is currently happening in Texas and with Critical Race Theory. We are currently banning books and creating textbooks that say what the elite in power want, not what is truth. No one can be trusted to be credible. It is clear that truth and history are getting lost in bureaucracy and it is our students and thus our nation that is suffering.

We need to let our students think for themselves. Thanks to the internet with computers and a plethora of information, we have the tools to do so. Instead of outdated history books that could serve as door stops -what if we made history active? We presented viewpoints and ideas and let the students learn and present. We add the emotion back in. They look at the pictures, read the quotes, the first hand stories, watch videos. Create presentations with differing viewpoints that are taught to the class.  If we let students use critical thinking. If we present them with information and let them use their brains. We might be surprised at what they could learn.


In school, did the narrative of “the exceptional fairness of America” rub you the wrong way? If not, did Loewen’s argument convince you that it should have? (p. 344)

I honestly never thought about it too much in school. It is only as an adult that it began to and I see now now more than ever how wrong it is and how much damage it does. 

through arguments and evidence and make reasoned judgments. If you were writing your own version of Lies what would you include?

As I said in the previous chapter, I would rely more on a living teaching plan for history. I think Loewen did a great job including the important points. I would be interested in more about women's rights, but I think he gave a comprehensive viewpoint.

Before reading the book, did you feel your education in history was sufficient and/or historically accurate? If so, did reading the book challenge this? 

The book challenged a lot of what I took for granted and made me much more aware. As I read it I kept thinking, I don't want my daughter to learn history this way. I want her to learn the truth. 

After reading the book, what were the points that Loewen made that you found the most shockng? What were the points that were most affirming?

I think the heroification - I had no idea about Wilson and about Nadir.  I learned a lot about the civil rights movement. I had no idea that we actually became more racist - and that it was only the civil rights movement that moved things to where they are now, but I understand even more now the racial inequality in our society. 

 

Loewen claims history is the least-liked subject in high school in most districts. Is he right? Do  you agree with his explanation?

What is “heroification”? (p. 11)

Why does Loewen choose Hellen Keller and Woodrow Wilson to illustrate the heroification 

process?

What are the three taboos in textbook publishing, according to Loewen? Why do they exist? (p. 

27)

 

A key point from the interview with James Loewen that stuck with me was his criticism of textbooks and History teachers to force-feed a fixed narrative to students that is void of controversy or tension. I think his suggestion for teachers to use research as the cornerstone of their instruction is right on. Allowing students to come to their own conclusions through inquiry and to defend them makes History much more interesting and incorporates so many more skills beyond reading comprehension and rote memorization. One strategy that I love to use in the classroom is Socratic seminars. It pushes kids to do that and allows room for a variety of theories and conclusions. My middle school kids love that format. I also liked Loewen’s suggestion to have students justify their sources.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/23/podcasts/1619-podcast.html 

When I listened to this podcast, I found it so riveting that I binge-listened to the entire five-part series. It covers some of the same history that is covered in Lies My Teachers Told Me. I thought it was so well done, but honestly, with the radical ideas against critical race theory in this country being so widespread and normalized, it gives me pause in terms of sharing things like this with my students for fear of backlash from some of my parent population that I work with. I think it is most important for folks like that to get exposure to different ideas, but it is something that I struggle with these days that I never did before. If I may pose a question: how much should we be catering to that and censoring what we teach our students? The 1619 Project is exactly the type of source that people are reacting against. To me it is baffling since it is our history and taking out parts of our history is a form of lying, which is precisely the premise of the book. I wonder how many of the other teachers feel that they need to be careful about how and what information they present. 

Heroification is basically presenting historical figures in a tidy package with no faults or complexities. Loewen chose Hellen Keller and Woodrow Wilson to illustrate heroification because they are examples of people whose lives had quite a bit of controversy, yet they are always presented as perfect heroes, omitting much of what made their lives and careers consequential. Loewen claims heroification happens because textbooks often avoid the three taboos: “sex, religion, and social class” (27). He claims they exist because it conflicts with the general narrative that America is the land of opportunity, and everyone has equal access to that dream if only they work hard enough. I think this narrative does tend to be “bor-r-ring” and it reduces “dramatic men and women to melodramatic stick figures” who are more likely to be poked fun at for that reason (29). I think that happens out of frustration on the parts of students who are bored. 

 

I had not heard the term syncretism. I think that learning about how Native Americans selectively incorporated European technologies, practices, and languages into their lives can reduce European ethnocentrism, because it illustrates how adaptable and sophisticated Native peoples were, contradicting the depiction of mental dullness and savagery. Loewen speaks to Native Americans, emphasizing syncretism as the way out for Native youth to avoid having to “choose” between “Western culture” and “Indian culture,” which I do think might be possible to a point. There has been a lot of trauma perpetrated by people of Western culture though, and many of those traumas continue to be repeated and reinforced today, so it is a very complicated issue. Take, for example, the children who were forced into boarding schools in the U.S. and Canada well into the mid-1900s and forced to give up their languages and customs. A lot of that blending of cultures and languages was forced and complicates issues of identity and so many other things. 

 

The narrative of “the exceptional fairness of America” always rubbed me wrong because I saw things happening around me that I didn’t agree with. I began to understand at a fairly young age that things were not as black and white as they were often presented. Loewen’s arguments validated a lot of my own thinking.