This was truly excellent and it represents precisely everything that students ought to be learning about U.S. history, as opposed to the white-washed history that they are actually being taught.

Loewen accomplishes three things with great perfection. Firstly, he presents the actual U.S. history instead of the celebratory nonsense that kids are indoctrinated with. In this process, he effectively highlights the significant distance that exists between education and historical reality.

Secondly, he delves into the reasons why this occurs. Textbook publishers are reluctant to offend parents or special interest groups, and at the same time, they don't want to lose business from local and state governments.

Finally, he discusses the consequences of teaching kids a cherry-coated version of history, which they will ultimately discover isn't true.

This work comes with the highest recommendation. It is a must-read for anyone interested in a more accurate and comprehensive understanding of U.S. history.

Coronavirus book #14.

You know, during a pandemic, one might think that reading books outside of one's usual comfort zone is a great idea. Well, that's precisely what I did here. I was actually quite excited about this particular book. However, like so many things lately, I was left thoroughly disappointed.

The chapters were incredibly long and filled with so much minutiae that I simply couldn't bring myself to care. Let me briefly summarize the chapters for you:

1. We tend to omit the unflattering aspects of our national historical figures' lives to make them look better on paper.

2. Christopher Columbus was not a great guy and was pretty much a jerk (this wasn't news to me).

3. The Pilgrims were not the true beginning of our country, and Thanksgiving has some elements that are rather questionable.

4. Native Americans were treated horribly (again, not a shock).

5. Our country was founded on racism, and racism still persists due to these deeply ingrained beliefs. (This was the chapter where I had hoped it would improve, but alas, it didn't.)

I have a genuine interest in history and was eager to learn new things. To be honest, I didn't really learn much that was new, and I was bored to death.

The worst part? The introduction hyped up how amazing this book was... but it just didn't live up to the expectations. Blurgh.

This is a powerful attack on American history textbooks.

The author severely criticizes high school textbook makers for the false information they present, such as overstating America's accomplishments and downplaying its sins. It is indeed challenging to defend American history textbooks, and this book definitely has a valid point.

The difficulty in reading this book lies in the extremely long list of negatives about the United States. Although one can admit that the U.S. has not behaved well in many aspects, it is equally untrue to claim that the U.S. has done nothing positive.

The author advocates for balance and thoughtfulness in the presentation of American history. This is reasonable. If American history were presented only as this book does, we would think our country is the worst one that has ever existed. Nevertheless, it makes for an interesting read.

Overall, this book forces us to reexamine and question the way American history is taught in textbooks, and it calls for a more objective and comprehensive approach to presenting the nation's past.

I gave up around the middle.

This book delves into some of the glaring omissions and outright lies that are included in American textbooks. It explores various aspects that are often overlooked or misrepresented. The chapters that I actually managed to finish mentioned interesting facts about Helen Keller, revealing that she was a socialist. It also shed light on Woodrow Wilson, describing him as an a-hole. Columbus was portrayed as a genocidal a-hole, and the truth about the Indians was presented, highlighting that they were farmers, not nomads as commonly believed. Additionally, the existence of racism was emphasized.

However, reading this book was akin to watching paint dry. It was extremely dull and uninteresting. If you're a moderately well-read person, chances are you already know that your US history textbook isn't entirely accurate about everything, or even most things. Therefore, I would definitely recommend skipping this one.

It seems that there are better resources available for those who are truly interested in learning the real and accurate history of the United States. This book fails to engage the reader and provide a comprehensive and captivating account of the subject matter.

History has always been my favorite subject.

Tragically, a great number of my high school history classes closely resembled the disheartening examples depicted here.

This remarkable book not only offers a critique of textbooks but also imparts more accurate versions of the incorrect tales that many of us have heard.

For instance, I was constantly taught that John Brown was somewhat deranged. He went to extremes and killed innocent people almost without reason (neglecting, of course, the significant issue of slavery...).

Fortunately, Loewen provides the facts regarding John Brown. He utilizes primary sources to offer a clearer perspective on the man's sanity, among other aspects.

John Brown's reputation is merely one of the numerous matters that this book addresses.

This was not an effortless book to peruse. There is a very resolute part of me that still desires to believe the "greatest country in the world" myth.

Happily, Loewen employs facts and evidence to support his point. He walks the walk. He presents the facts and allows the reader to reach their own conclusion.

I have decided to be more discerning about the history I accept. I also intend to teach my children to be patriotic, not nationalistic.

Our country has numerous problems that require alteration, but it will always be home. I am glad that I am now equipped with more information to assist in making it better.

I have come to the realization that my understanding of history, especially American history, is shockingly deficient. As a result, I have initiated efforts to address this issue. "Lies My Teacher Told Me" not only elucidates numerous half-truths and blatant lies that are imparted in American history classes from elementary to high school. It also endeavors to clarify the reasons why textbooks are replete with such falsehoods.

It seems that educators, school boards, parents, and our political leaders are apprehensive that if students are privy to the truth of our nation's history, they might be less inclined to trust our leaders and could potentially be unpatriotic. While patriotism is indeed admirable, blind patriotism, which appears to be the objective, is perilous. We must be cognizant of the actions our ancestors took towards others. Otherwise, we cannot even commence to fathom why so many individuals worldwide hold an aversion towards us. There is a significant dearth in what is being taught. And it is because history is so frequently presented as mere rote facts rather than the captivating and dramatic narrative that it truly is, that students fail to glean anything meaningful from their history classes.

I am extremely pleased that I read this book, and I eagerly anticipate reading a few more that were mentioned by Lowen. I wholeheartedly recommend this book.

To put it simply, everyone should read this book.

It serves as an eye-opener, revealing aspects that we were not taught as students in elementary school, high school, and in some cases, college.

The author challenges the traditional notion of "My country right or wrong" by highlighting the "wrong" part that is often overlooked in our history classes.

From Christopher Columbus to the Pilgrims' arrival in America and the Vietnam War, the writer not only presents the real events but also contrasts them with what the history books convey or, more significantly, what they omit.

He also examines the consequences of creating a fairy tale out of American history.

The author exposes how the rote memorization of facts and dates, which are only useful for passing multiple-choice tests, has led to the death of critical thought.

Textbook publishers should be ashamed of their approach to American history.

However, in a society where speed and the accumulation of money are of utmost importance, it is likely that those publishers will never change.

This book offers a fresh perspective and encourages readers to question and reevaluate the history they have been taught.

I read this as material for an essay I'm writing for a college class.

As a history major, I was truly intrigued by this book. I have a passion for reading history books, whether they are textbooks or not, and I never consider it boring.

This book delves into the issue of how boring and monotonous American history classes are in our schools. It points out that due to this, Americans often can't be bothered to learn about their own history.

It is an interesting read for me because I like seeing someone's reasoning behind why certain classes are perceived as boring and just something to get through. Additionally, I enjoyed reading about his suggestions to change this situation.

Overall, this book has provided me with valuable insights and perspectives that I can incorporate into my college essay.

Before delving into this review, let me offer a couple of disclaimers, if you will.

First of all, I am not an American and did not go through the American school system. This means I have no firsthand experience of the standard of history teaching as referred to by James Loewen. I am British and consider myself extremely fortunate to have attended a very good school back home.

Secondly, I am aware that in many countries, history is tweaked a little, either for feel-good or nationalist purposes, depending on how one chooses to view these distortions. British history is not taught in a particularly balanced way in the UK, especially when it comes to more modern issues such as the Irish "troubles".

That being said, I am cognizant of some of the appalling atrocities committed by the English and then the British over the years. For example, I know about the pogrom against the Jews of York in that city's castle in 1190, one of the reasons being the debt a local noble owed and didn't want to pay. I also know that Oliver Cromwell's invasion of Ireland was a disgustingly bloody affair, and that more recently, indefensible acts have been carried out in that country in the name of the United Kingdom. I could continue with British actions in India, much of Africa, or even the initial English colonisation efforts in North America, but the point has been made: we should know about these things, and we do.

In America, it seems that teaching the past failings of the state and its people is a taboo, leaving the populace unable to critically consider how it got to where it is now and often in possession of a history that is simply not true. Loewen points out with exceptional clarity examples such as Columbus. American textbooks claim that he sailed west, discovered the Americas, and found that the world was not, after all, flat. The previous sentence can only be considered true if it ends with "sailed west". He most definitely did not discover the Americas - which were populated when he arrived - and sailors had known for centuries that the earth was curved - a ship's hull disappearing over the horizon before its sails will tell anyone that.

However, Loewen does not simply limit himself to correcting the simple untruths of history. He vigorously, and quite rightly, attacks the coverage of Woodrow Wilson, a white supremacist who meddled in the affairs of other nations, often creating long-term problems both locally and for America itself by constantly launching invasions of other states. He also criticizes the most recent American interventions in Iran and Lebanon, which have created sectarian and political issues in those countries, and even the Vietnam War, which was portrayed as a moral intervention when it most certainly was not.

What Loewen is at great pains to point out, and what he covers so well, is that the books used to teach Americans about how they came to be where they are today depict government after government as spotless, and their "mistakes" as misunderstandings. Wrongful executions, the napalming of vast areas of jungle in Vietnam and Laos, continued attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro, and many other unforgivable horrors - all are either painted as the unfortunate errors of a nation striving to do good, or else completely ignored as inconvenient.

"Lies My Teacher Told Me" is a scathing indictment of how American high school students are taught about their country. Thoroughly researched and filled with incisive, to-the-point arguments, if James Loewen's work has not yet brought about a change in an education system run by interest groups, then it's high time it did. America is not the only country that distorts its history beyond recognition - Russians are taught a version of history so far from the truth that it shouldn't even be called history - but for a country that likes to pride itself on openness and progress, Loewen asks questions that demand answers.

I picked up “Lies my Teacher Told Me” out of my deep interest in history. I have a passion for learning all the information I can, as I'm aware there are numerous historical facts that are deliberately overlooked.

However, I only managed to get about halfway through the book. James Loewen initially presents a certain facade, but then he turns his book into what seems like propaganda with a heavy liberal bias. It's like a bait and switch, so be cautious. The first couple of chapters are quite solid. But after you've bought the book, it takes a turn for the worse and becomes a trainwreck, even violating its own rules.

The first thing to understand about this book is related to James Loewen. He has written at least one history textbook for high school. From the way he talks about it, it sounds like there are two. One that sold poorly and one that he had a lawsuit about. Apparently, there's only one book. It seems his version of the book had to fight to get into the school system because people disagreed with his view of history. This makes James Loewen seem rather biased, and he brings that bias directly into this book.

In the first chapter, he discusses heroification and uses two examples, Helen Keller and Woodrow Wilson. He exposes some of the less pleasant aspects of Woodrow Wilson's presidency and talks about Helen Keller's life after overcoming her adversity, including her work with the communists. However, he refrains from condemning either one. Instead, he actually praises Wilson's positive actions while also mentioning his negatives. He also avoids condemning Keller's love of communism but still calls her out on it, leaving it to the reader to make the judgment. He warns that "treating our historical figures as idols" is a problem.

One thing to note is that often he will bring up a topic but avoid printing the exact words he's discussing in the book. I'm not sure why he does this at times. It seems like he's either trying to avoid lengthening the book (even though it's not that long) or doesn't think the reader needs to read the word and only cares about "what should be in the history book." Neither of these is a good reason. In fact, it's annoying because quite often he discusses how short certain passages are and yet still doesn't reprint them, so the reader can't accurately judge and has to rely on Loewen's judgment.

His next few chapters are interestingly about the Indians and Columbus. He tears down the image of Columbus and shows that the Indians were actually very different from how they are portrayed in our history books, pretty much proving that a lot of what we know about them is wrong. While he condemns eurocentric storytelling, he makes a valid point with his facts.

Up to this point, I have to say the book is quite good. But then we get to the civil war section, and the book starts to decline. In the previous chapters, Loewen sticks to the facts and, while he draws conclusions, he mostly lets the facts speak for themselves.

The problem is that in the civil war section, he pretty much abandons the facts. He uses broad generalizations instead. He blames the south for much of their work on slavery and also calls out the myths the south uses. But he never has any issues with the north. He ignores the problems with the Emancipation Proclamation, such as how it doesn't affect the north and claims to change the south but has no authority to ban slavery in a seceded nation. He continues to talk about the "nadir" of racism to the point where a reader feels that it's absolute truth due to repetition.

The real problem with this chapter comes from his treatment of Abraham Lincoln. Instead of discussing him with facts and figures and using actual incidents, Loewen takes a completely different approach. He spends half the chapter making excuses for Lincoln. He even brings up issues with Lincoln and then spends most of the chapter praising him as a great emancipator. He ignores the very obvious problems with his writing in the New York Tribune, which he claims books rely on too readily, and instead just claims him to be a great abolitionist. In fact, most historians find Lincoln highly questionable, and some of his actions definitely make one wonder about his true motives.

However, Loewen ignores all of this and finds an excuse for every time Lincoln acted in a less than perfect way. He quickly says "this shows he's a tortured soul when dealing with slavery" and then continues to praise Lincoln for achievements without providing the source material.

He talks in the first few chapters about the fact that history books ignore facts when drawing conclusions, cherry-pick quotes, avoid direct quotes from the sources, and present a one-sided view of people to avoid discussion. These are all very troubling things. Yet Loewen does almost all of these things when discussing the civil war, especially when dealing with Lincoln. He claims Lincoln was troubled but then spends his time ignoring those troubles or explaining how his warped view can apply, even though there are many issues with his version. He claims the entire nation changed their mind in a year between 1863 and 1864, but won't even consider the idea that Lincoln's views changed from 1860 to 1864.

James Loewen does everything he complains about in his first five chapters in a single chapter. Worse still, when one thinks back to the chapter, while the first remains relatively based in facts, the other chapters are often just suppositions that Loewen brings up. The question then arises: are these facts true and the conclusions drawn factual, or are there some major questions that are being glossed over? I don't know.

After covering the civil war, Loewen drops the pretense of being impartial, continues his rant about racism, and jumps to privilege. I skipped those chapters to see if I could salvage anything from the book, but by then, the facade was broken. I could no longer trust Loewen's view of history. Once I had given up on his treatment of Lincoln, even though I read the full chapter, I realized I couldn't continue to read the book. I had lost faith in Loewen to give me a proper, unbiased version of history. And to me, when a history book fails to do that, it has no value.

If you want to read "The liberal version of history," feel free to pick up this book. But remember, you're not reading an unbiased version of history or all the facts that history books don't print. Instead, you're getting one person's version of history, one that is often force-fed to the reader rather than explained and presented in a way that gives the reader a clean slate to consider the facts. It's a shame because the "idea" of the book is a great attempt, but the execution of the book leaves a lot to be desired.

Without question, this is the greatest non-fiction book I have ever read. To illustrate that claim, let me highlight that it served, in large part, as the inspiration for my master's thesis.

In it, Loewen, a college professor, is constantly frustrated by how little his young, incoming freshmen know about history. So, in the late 90s he wrote a scathing investigation of the most common history textbooks used in secondary classes. He details how poorly these textbooks link events, leaving students with little idea how one occurrence causes another.

But more importantly, he decries how much these textbooks turn historical figures into heroes, rather than actual human beings. As a few examples: Abraham Lincoln's private journal makes it apparent that he did not emancipate slaves because he thought slavery immoral, but because he thought it economically unmanageable. Hellen Keller, a committed Socialist, did not believe anyone could improve their station in life if they worked hard enough, which is of course the lesson her childhood is supposed to teach us. And Woodrow Wilson was a rabid racist and a member of the Ku Klux Klan. But these truths are never taught to secondary students, for reasons that are at best ineffectual.

Loewen could not be more brutal in his assessment of secondary school's historical lessons. And he, and this book, will forever be one of my models as I continue teaching. I would encourage any and everyone to read this book; more than any other source, it will help you become a better American citizen. It makes you question the information you have been taught and look at history from a more critical perspective. By understanding the true nature of historical events and figures, we can make more informed decisions in the present and work towards a better future.

First of all, I carefully read through a plethora of reviews where people assert that Loewen is promoting his own "leftist" agenda, and I simply have to raise the flag of "BS".

If anyone were to conduct a proper research on Loewen himself, they would discover that he is actually quite a centrist, a moderate, if you will. However, rather than taking the time to reevaluate their own ideological perceptions, it has seemingly become the new standard to simply dismiss someone, regardless of how impeccable the sourcing may be, as having a liberal bias. By the way, he said Helen Keller was a "socialist", not a "communist", and if one cannot understand the difference between the two, they most certainly do not belong writing a review on a history text.

I believe the book was written splendidly. Had I been provided with information like this during my high school years, I probably would have actually remained awake in class. I am making it compulsory reading for my teenage sons as I desire for them to question everything. After all, it appears that in approximately twenty years or so, having that tiny, little ability will surely be anything but common in this country. It ought to be required reading in our schools. But, with the current class war being waged on "free" thought, I certainly won't be holding my breath.

It is perfectly acceptable to be proud of your country. That is what is known as pride. However, when your pride impedes your ability to be honest about the wrongdoings that have been committed by your country, that is when it crosses the line into nationalism. And nationalism is the very root of inhumanity.