Take a photo of a barcode or cover
1.04k reviews for:
Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong
James W. Loewen
4.04 AVERAGE
1.04k reviews for:
Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong
James W. Loewen
4.04 AVERAGE
informative
slow-paced
Great job going through why we are taught according to how a few privileged people want us to learn
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
This book is a good primer for people to read and be curious about, the author even says it himself. This is not the definite summary of American history.
True rating: 4-4.5, rounding up for reasons in the review.
For anyone who’s interested in history beyond what’s taught in history classes, most of what Jon Loewen writes about isn’t a surprise - it’s unsurprising that history textbooks omit a bit of history and often serve a certain narrative, but the way that Loewen lays out his argument is his survey of history books over times continues to have the same blind spots, and is even more damning when the credited authors don’t recall their own input (or lack thereof). It’s an interesting analysis into what we consider to be “textbook material”, and certainly raises questions about what should be part of necessary study material in required education. I enjoyed his thoughts about alternative ways to teach history, and found some of it reflected in my own history education looking back.
His line of thinking about approaching major time periods in history is interesting, and shows that it’s not just rose-colored lenses on far past or more recent history. But, it does show how history can (and is) influenced by those in power, namely white and wealthy. This is meant to be an anti-racist book, so by pointing out things like the existence of Indian plagues before European settlement in America isn’t meant to be a liberal education point - it simply points out that there’s a reason why a vast culture existed before “America”, and why settlement was perhaps easier than settling from scratch. This can read more political when it comes to talking about presidential political decisions and civil rights (from Abraham’s strategic support of abolition despite not being a believer in equal rights himself, to the government countermoves to the civil rights movement), but I don’t think it’s more political to detail more of the situation and context. But the vocabulary and way written is explicitly anti-racist, which can probably be uncomfortable for some readers. I suggest taking a step back, and some time to digest, before deciding whether the example actually is political or not.
In the larger education discussion, I thought it was interesting how he approached the dove vs. hawk question between the highly educated and less educated American public, and also thinking about the impact on political party makeup at the time. It certainly colors how we see recent past like the Vietnam and Korean Wars, but still carries impact into the current day. Something that he brought up is that despite his “liberal agenda”, typically anti-racist and nonconformist teaching is done at wealthier and elite schools, meaning that the so-called “white elite” may or may not have a hand in what’s actually taught in America. I think he started his analysis off with an interesting hypothesis about marketability and the value of donors of education, but wonder if it should be its own book talking more broadly about the creation of textbooks/its differences from academia despite drawing heavily from it?
Overall really enjoyed reading this! A lot to talk about and I enjoyed sharing tidbits I was reading with others. But do warned - it is dense and I recommend taking your time. Also take advantage of the wealth of cited resources!
For anyone who’s interested in history beyond what’s taught in history classes, most of what Jon Loewen writes about isn’t a surprise - it’s unsurprising that history textbooks omit a bit of history and often serve a certain narrative, but the way that Loewen lays out his argument is his survey of history books over times continues to have the same blind spots, and is even more damning when the credited authors don’t recall their own input (or lack thereof). It’s an interesting analysis into what we consider to be “textbook material”, and certainly raises questions about what should be part of necessary study material in required education. I enjoyed his thoughts about alternative ways to teach history, and found some of it reflected in my own history education looking back.
His line of thinking about approaching major time periods in history is interesting, and shows that it’s not just rose-colored lenses on far past or more recent history. But, it does show how history can (and is) influenced by those in power, namely white and wealthy. This is meant to be an anti-racist book, so by pointing out things like the existence of Indian plagues before European settlement in America isn’t meant to be a liberal education point - it simply points out that there’s a reason why a vast culture existed before “America”, and why settlement was perhaps easier than settling from scratch. This can read more political when it comes to talking about presidential political decisions and civil rights (from Abraham’s strategic support of abolition despite not being a believer in equal rights himself, to the government countermoves to the civil rights movement), but I don’t think it’s more political to detail more of the situation and context. But the vocabulary and way written is explicitly anti-racist, which can probably be uncomfortable for some readers. I suggest taking a step back, and some time to digest, before deciding whether the example actually is political or not.
In the larger education discussion, I thought it was interesting how he approached the dove vs. hawk question between the highly educated and less educated American public, and also thinking about the impact on political party makeup at the time. It certainly colors how we see recent past like the Vietnam and Korean Wars, but still carries impact into the current day. Something that he brought up is that despite his “liberal agenda”, typically anti-racist and nonconformist teaching is done at wealthier and elite schools, meaning that the so-called “white elite” may or may not have a hand in what’s actually taught in America. I think he started his analysis off with an interesting hypothesis about marketability and the value of donors of education, but wonder if it should be its own book talking more broadly about the creation of textbooks/its differences from academia despite drawing heavily from it?
Overall really enjoyed reading this! A lot to talk about and I enjoyed sharing tidbits I was reading with others. But do warned - it is dense and I recommend taking your time. Also take advantage of the wealth of cited resources!
This book had a bit of a slow start, a solid middle, and a rough end. Primarily, I think the issue with this book is that it’s outdated lol. Besides an updated introduction, the meat of this book has not changed since 1997. That’s as long as I’ve been alive. Teaching has changed so much since then that his analysis comes off as extremely out of touch.
He makes many excellent and thought-provoking points about how teachers teach certain subjects, especially when they rely on textbooks as source material. It made me reflect on how I could rethink my own approach to these subjects now that I teach high school U.S. history (the grade level which his study centers). I also think he does a solid job of highlighting the ways in which history textbooks highlight (or minimize) certain aspects of American history. Depending on the textbook, this could present to very different versions of the same story. He gives really solid examples on Vietnam, in particular, but also reconstruction and the 1960’s. I also really enjoyed his arguments on the role textbooks play in maintaining and even crafting a nationalist narrative and this idea of America as a beacon of hope, change, and morality for the rest of the world (lollll).
BUT, where I feel the disconnect lies and the outdated nature of this book shines is the absolute lack of discussion on the role of state standards and high-stakes testing. Again, it’s likely not a reflection on his capabilities as a researcher; I’m sure that history classrooms looked much different in 1997. But, in today’s classrooms, any analysis of how/why teachers teach the way they do is incomplete without acknowledging the limitations of state standards. A whole entire separate discussion can be had on how/why state standards include/exclude/highlight/minimize the topics they do (and how that ties into textbook adoption), but I found myself getting so frustrated sitting through 350+ pages of criticism towards teachers without any page space dedicated to this issue! That’s not even to touch on discussions that could be had on the most recent instances of censorship in history classrooms, such as book bannings and Republican legislation’s impact on curriculum. I ended up not reading the last like forty pages lol.
He makes many excellent and thought-provoking points about how teachers teach certain subjects, especially when they rely on textbooks as source material. It made me reflect on how I could rethink my own approach to these subjects now that I teach high school U.S. history (the grade level which his study centers). I also think he does a solid job of highlighting the ways in which history textbooks highlight (or minimize) certain aspects of American history. Depending on the textbook, this could present to very different versions of the same story. He gives really solid examples on Vietnam, in particular, but also reconstruction and the 1960’s. I also really enjoyed his arguments on the role textbooks play in maintaining and even crafting a nationalist narrative and this idea of America as a beacon of hope, change, and morality for the rest of the world (lollll).
BUT, where I feel the disconnect lies and the outdated nature of this book shines is the absolute lack of discussion on the role of state standards and high-stakes testing. Again, it’s likely not a reflection on his capabilities as a researcher; I’m sure that history classrooms looked much different in 1997. But, in today’s classrooms, any analysis of how/why teachers teach the way they do is incomplete without acknowledging the limitations of state standards. A whole entire separate discussion can be had on how/why state standards include/exclude/highlight/minimize the topics they do (and how that ties into textbook adoption), but I found myself getting so frustrated sitting through 350+ pages of criticism towards teachers without any page space dedicated to this issue! That’s not even to touch on discussions that could be had on the most recent instances of censorship in history classrooms, such as book bannings and Republican legislation’s impact on curriculum. I ended up not reading the last like forty pages lol.
This is a must-read for anyone living in the United States!
Social SCIENCE includes history, and I could never understand why more people don't like history. I love it - but after this book, I'd say I barely knew it. Our public school system is so political and we lie to and mislead our children about things that happened if it makes our government or heroes look bad. And bad things were done (and good things, too!)
Loewen's analysis of secondary history textbooks forms the foundation of this book and he approaches it like a teacher, a social scientist, and a caring citizen of our country. I hope all his former students realize how lucky they were to have him as a teacher. I hope he never got in trouble for telling the truth in his classrooms and teaching students how to think for themselves. HIGHLY recommended!
Loewen's analysis of secondary history textbooks forms the foundation of this book and he approaches it like a teacher, a social scientist, and a caring citizen of our country. I hope all his former students realize how lucky they were to have him as a teacher. I hope he never got in trouble for telling the truth in his classrooms and teaching students how to think for themselves. HIGHLY recommended!
Fascinating overview of several inaccuracies and omissions that are taught (or not) in high school history. Loewen's critique of textbook adoption and the reasoning behind how history is taught was also interesting.