Writing holds a significant position in humanity's journey. It enables the easier transmission of ideas, thoughts, and emotions across centuries. In Western civilization, history depends greatly on the written word. To know about the past, we must rely on the truthfulness of such writings. However, there is a more crucial issue than trust.

Impartial and unbiased accounts are extremely difficult. Even modern-day journalists struggle to perform their jobs with absolute objectivity. It is intangible. The same applies to those who write history. James Loewen is aware of this problem and informs the reader about it.

"Lies, My Teacher Told Me" is the author's attempt to identify the flaws and obvious problems in modern-day American high school history textbooks. They are filled with omissions and half-truths, make heroes out of ordinary, imperfect individuals, are ethnocentric (focusing on white males as the center of the narratives), and are overly patriotic, exacerbating unhealthy patriotism.

With exhilarating brilliance, James Loewen successfully denounces all that he believes is wrong and untrue about the teaching of history in America. By reading this valuable book, the reader will gain enlightenment about a more realistic version of the rich American history.

Throughout the history events that are taught in high school, this particular account presents the unsanitized versions. While it确实 taught me a variety of new and rather depressing things, the明显的 political leaning made certain parts extremely difficult to read. It seemed as if it was constantly contradicting itself in relation to what it was attempting to achieve.

The author's bias was so blatant that it overshadowed the actual historical facts in some instances. This made it challenging for me to objectively assess and understand the events. Instead of presenting a balanced view, it seemed to push a particular agenda, which detracted from the overall learning experience.

Moreover, the contradictions within the text left me confused and questioning the credibility of the information being presented. How could something claim to be objective and yet continuously take sides? It made me wonder if the author was more interested in promoting a certain ideology rather than providing an accurate and comprehensive account of history.

Lies My Teacher Told Me is an excellently written and highly perceptive revelation of certain problems deeply rooted in the teaching of US History within public schools.

From antiquated textbooks to blatant distortions of fundamental events and significant figures, Loewen presents readers with an aspect of US History that the majority do not encounter during high school.

Nevertheless, I had an issue with some of his methods. His examination of just 12 textbooks hardly seemed sufficient to formulate a truly scathing critique of the nation's education.

Moreover, his judgments are overly broad. Although the textbooks might have inaccuracies, he behaves as if education merely consists of reading textbooks and regurgitating the information within them.

This kind of perspective neglects the vital element of teacher participation. One of the books he reviewed was utilized in my US History class, yet our teacher managed to avoid the outdated and incorrect falsehoods that our book contained.

It is an interesting read, but it is not enough to condemn the entire educational system.

While some of the facts presented in this book were indeed interesting,

it seemed as if the author was overly insistent on imposing his own agenda on every aspect.

This reached a point where I found it difficult to trust his narrative as being objective and credible.

In general, the book held a great deal of promise,

but it also elicited a certain amount of skepticism on my part.

The author's apparent bias made it challenging to view the information presented in a completely unbiased light.

Despite the interesting facts, the overall tone and approach of the book left me with some reservations.

It made me question the authenticity and reliability of the author's claims.

Perhaps with a more balanced and objective approach, the book could have been even more engaging and informative.

As it stands, while there were some redeeming qualities, the book ultimately fell short in terms of its credibility and objectivity.

This is one of my favorite books on history education.

Loewen takes a critical look at American history textbooks. What he discovers are those feel-good narratives that present America's progress as inevitable.

These narratives, however, simply sweep over the numerous problems and issues that our society has faced.

As a result, students are left with a rather poor understanding of the true reasons behind why things happened.

Consequently, they also find themselves powerless when it comes to making any meaningful change in their own society.

This lack of a comprehensive and accurate understanding of history can have far-reaching consequences for the future of our society.

It is essential that we take a closer look at the way history is taught and presented in textbooks to ensure that students are equipped with the knowledge and tools they need to understand and shape the world around them.

Most of our history books have carried an underlying agenda to promote patriotism for the sake of national pride and devotion to our country.

As a result, a significant portion of the American story has been distorted, fabricated, or left out.

However, isn't it more beneficial to know the truth?

This book is remarkably enlightening regarding the shameful chapters of our history.

Not only do I firmly believe that every American should read it, but perhaps we should read it every five years.

I, for one, have made up my mind to do so.

By reading this book, we can gain a more comprehensive and accurate understanding of our nation's past, including the mistakes and misdeeds that have occurred.

This knowledge can help us to learn from history and avoid repeating the same errors in the future.

It can also foster a sense of responsibility and accountability among us as citizens, as we become more aware of the impact that our actions can have on the nation and the world.

Overall, this book is a valuable resource for anyone who is interested in learning the truth about American history.

This book received 2 stars. It contains many interesting facts, indicating a significant amount of research. However, almost everything else detracts from it.

His main argument is that textbooks are biased, creating heroes out of flawed individuals and being "Eurocentric." But he fails to follow his own advice. Instead of simply correcting the record or presenting multiple viewpoints, he goes to the other extreme. This isn't necessarily bad; I don't mind a strong viewpoint. The problem is that he presents his view as reasonable and balanced when, in fact, he is just as biased as those he criticizes. Having a bias is not as big a problem as having a bias while assuming your perspective is completely objective and any deviation is due to "right-wing" groups hijacking the textbook adoption process.

Regarding his constant reference to a few popular textbooks, it seems like an attack on a straw man. Nobody reads history texts! We learn some incorrect things from them and our teachers, but my knowledge of history comes from various sources and perspectives. I'm not a gullible sponge indoctrinated by sloppy textbook authorship.

This review needs to be longer to address many aspects of the book. Here are some topics:

Columbus: The details of his atrocities are interesting and disturbing. He seems to argue that Columbus is overemphasized because he was a tyrant and other groups also traveled to the Americas. I agree with the first point but not the second. His table of known or suspected journeys before Columbus only emphasizes how unique Columbus was as the others had no impact on our current way of life. It was interesting trivia, but in the study of events that shaped our world, the author inadvertently strengthened the case for Columbus' impact.

Vietnam: His thesis is that textbooks avoid saying much. One would think he would present a balanced view to弥补 this lack. However, he only presents facts that make America look bad. While the reasons for going in were shaky and Americans did bad things, surely the communists also did bad things? There is no mention of this.

Iraq war: This was perhaps the most astonishing section. He presents the conspiracy theory that Bush knew there were no weapons of mass destruction but went to war anyway to secure oil contracts for his friends and family. He presents this as the accurate and well-reasoned view without any balancing perspective.

Economics: Throughout the book, the author shows himself to be a poor economist. For example, he suggests that the black family broke up in the latter half of the 20th century due to white racism. This is absurd. If the black family remained intact during slavery, why would it break up after a century of improved liberty? The answer is that well-intentioned welfare benefits gave poor people (disproportionately black) an incentive not to be married. It was because society tried to help rather than hurt blacks that unwed births spiked.

He also succumbs to the caveman fallacy by lamenting global trade and idealizing self-sufficient farms of the past. If we all lived like cavemen, there wouldn't be the abuse of the poor (I guess because we'd all be poor).

Several times he attacks the income gap between two groups. I'm tired of such attacks. First, people always assume they know the cause (e.g., "Bush's policies favored the rich!" - which they didn't, as the poor received the greatest tax reduction). Second, they ignore the absolute benefits of capitalism and free trade. It's not America's fault that its system has separated it economically from oppressive regimes. It's the regimes' fault for not allowing their people to prosper!

Anyway, there's more, but I don't have time to write it now. If you want to be biased, that's fine, but don't pretend you're not. Thanks.

UPDATE #2: Now, I find myself in a different school district. Here, there is a much greater emphasis on using the textbook and achieving "coverage." This new environment has allowed me to better understand the points that Loewen is making. As a result, I am finishing the book to revise my initial criticism. (12/17)

UPDATE: After reading the first 150 pages, the book now sits on my shelf, and I pick it up from time to time.

This book has its merits on several levels. It holds textbook publishers accountable for their lackluster treatment of American history. It also emphasizes the importance of using primary documents, which are often overlooked by ineffective teachers. Additionally, it comprehensively summarizes valid criticisms of the general approach taken by textbooks and, by extension, some high school teachers when dealing with sensitive subjects in American history.

However, it falls short of its claims. It is neither new nor unique. Had it been titled more appropriately, it would likely have been relegated to the back of the store in the "teacher handbooks" section.

"Lies My Teacher Told Me" gives the impression of uncovering "controversial issues" that are being forced upon our children by dishonest teachers across America. But really, does anyone actually teach that Christopher Columbus was a godlike hero? Do high schools truly teach that the inhabitants of North America when the Pilgrims landed were noble savages, few in number, and that the Europeans were simply arriving to take control of a virtually empty continent? And that the Manifest Destiny march of conquest was inevitable and might makes right? These are just the first three examples,占据了330页中“感谢我的老师现在知道如何教授美国历史”部分的110页。我并不反对他所说的大部分内容……教科书过于保守，我们需要更多结合霍华德·津恩和雷·拉斐尔观点的当代学术研究……这很好。

但是，洛文过于专注于他对教科书的量化研究，他基于一个极其错误的假设，即所有老师所做的就是分发厚厚的教科书，然后就去睡觉了。这对孩子们来说当然很无聊！嗯，是的。

这本书有其价值，在很多地方也很有趣，比如马萨诸塞州第一个感恩节的350周年纪念日。1970年，州商务部要求万帕诺亚格人选择一位演讲者。当弗兰克·詹姆斯被选中后，他不得不向白人展示他的演讲内容，却不被允许宣读，因为它不够喜庆。这很有趣，但这似乎与洛文的另一本书《美国的谎言》相符。它与“我的老师告诉我的谎言”，甚至与这本书的副标题“你的美国历史教科书所犯的所有错误”都没有真正的关系。

我还在继续阅读。我曾把它放在一边，因为他写的大部分内容都是自我吹嘘的废话，暗示他在告知全国大量无知、说谎、道德败坏的教育工作者（他们可能受到那个该死的社会主义教师工会的保护）。但他并没有。他是一位退休的前大学社会学教师，表面上他找到了一份不错的退休收入（他在第二版的引言中激动地写道：“从第一天起，读者就使《谎言》取得了成功。”）

实际上，我认为其中最大的谎言是，这个人在告诉全国历史课堂上发生了什么。他说得对，教科书通常会忽略任何不能将美国描绘成“机遇之地”的内容，并崇拜那些常见的英雄……但教科书总是由学校董事会购买，而不是老师。也许这才是他应该写这本书的主题，但那样就不会那么吸引人了。

另一个想法：为什么这位所谓的纠错者没有选择花些时间写一本真正好的、公平的、准确的教科书呢？哦，好吧，因为那太难了，几乎不可能（想想他用330页来触及8 - 9个主题……）。而且，他永远也不可能像现在这样通过加入“老师很差劲”的行列来赚钱，那些人的议程与他自己的完全不同，而且更具破坏性。

我怀疑这个惊人且故意不准确的书名并不是他最初的想法……这本书主要是对教科书的控诉，而不是对老师的，但一定有人告诉他，如果他在书名中把老师扔到车下，销量会如何飙升——“甚至老师也会出于自卫而购买它！”这就是我买它的原因……我只是很高兴我是打折买的。

I truly despised American history during my high school days. I had no clue as to why. All I knew was that in college, I chose a Western Civ class. And then I came across Howard Zinn's works, and later this book in the 90s. From them, I finally understood the reason behind my hatred for American history. It was because it was whitewashed. It glorified people with questionable morality (by today's standards) such as Columbus and slave-owners Jefferson and Washington.

What's even worse is that mainstream texts and teachers skirted around the issue of slavery. We were fed the argument that "Africans sold other Africans into slavery," which is a poorly thought-out attempt to justify the unjust. In fact, not truly grasping the brutality of slavery made both black-power and white-racism completely incomprehensible to me. It was better parodied in "Blazing Saddles" than in reality.

Zinn and Loewin, however, do not sugar-coat anything. They present the facts as they are.

As Loewin points out, a dull and inoffensive history does a great injustice to our real heroes. Without understanding the depth of the South's attachment to slavery and white supremacy, we cannot fathom the strength of Lincoln's anti-racist stances. Instead, he is just seen as an ordinary guy who was torn, seeing both the Northern and Southern sides.

Nor do we understand how Reconstruction led to Jim Crow. And how Woodrow Wilson, despite his achievements, was a rabid white supremacist who actively segregated US government jobs. He allowed white racism to thrive and blossom, reversing 75 years of progress by tacitly supporting groups like the Klan and Jim Crow.

From this perspective, the Freedom Riders shine even brighter. They were heroes, fighting against restrictive, regressive, deeply ingrained, and hate-filled social institutions.

No, you won't find any of this in your typical high school history book.

I loved this book when I first read it about twenty years ago. Mostly because by exposing me to this "dangerous" information, I now understand. I see that both the Black Power movement and the Klan have their roots in the same institution - slavery. And I can better understand why both sides are wrong, seeing only half of the picture.

Loewin then delves into the larger and more important question: why are our textbooks so dreadfully dull that they offer us no preparation for being fully functioning American citizens?

It turns out to be the influence of pressure groups, especially Right-Wing groups in large states like Texas that purchase a disproportionate number of textbooks. But, as Loewin also mentions, hyper-sensitive Left-Wing groups are increasingly getting involved. So instead of creating a text that engages, textbook publishers approve of bland, hero-worshipping histories where neither the US nor its presidents can do any wrong.

Even racist presidents like Wilson, who drove the leaders of the NAACP off the White House property.

I would highly recommend this book to anyone who is truly interested in "Big-'T' Truth" and how social pressure prevents the truth from being widely known. There are facts in here that will offend every American... if you are too sensitive: male and female; left and right; black, red, and white are all targets.

It may often be uncomfortable, but the truth will set you free. And reading Loewin does highlight some truths that will have you searching on Google and questioning late into the night.

* Irony. After writing this review, I checked Google News and found an article about how McGraw-Hill caved in to a Texas panel and referred to African slaves as "workers." Despite the fact that "worker" implies "wages."

Thankfully, the story has a happy ending. Pressure from various sources caused the publisher to abandon the white supremacist spin and publish the unadulterated truth: America began as a slave state, our ancestors kidnapped slaves from their homes and traded them like cattle today.

Slavery was, is, and always will be a heinous, immoral, and dehumanizing act.

The truth is out.

newsweek.com/company-behind-texas-textbook-calling-slaves-workers-apologizes-we-made-380168

This article should be required reading for collegiate American history students.

However, it deducts a star because the author makes no attempt to hide his liberal bias. I, of course, like this aspect, but it might pose a challenge for some. They may view it as nothing more than a pointless character assassination of our shared cultural and national heroes.

The author contends that American history should not mainly serve as a tool for inculcating patriotism and commitment. Instead, it should be a means of learning to avoid repeating the same mistakes and building upon the successes of our past. And we cannot achieve this without knowing the truth of what actually happened.

I can see both perspectives. In any case, people should be cognizant of these matters. It is essential for a comprehensive understanding of American history and for the growth and development of our society.

By being aware of different viewpoints and interpretations, students can form their own opinions and contribute to a more informed and democratic discourse.

The article starts out quite well, receiving a 4 rating initially.

However, as it progresses, it progressively heads in a leftward direction, accompanied by a decrease in both the support for its argument and the overall writing quality. Eventually, it ends with a 2 rating.

If one has an axe to grind, it is essential to admit that fact and then convince the readers why it is worthwhile to do so.

The question then arises: Did I take this metaphor too far?

If by chance you completely agree with the author, that's great.

Even if not, the first few chapters of the article are still worth reading as they may offer some valuable insights or perspectives.

Overall, while the article has its flaws, it still has some redeeming qualities that make it worth considering.

This is a book that I assigned to my students. It is not an easy read, yet it is highly informative.

One aspect of the book that I deemed unnecessary was the author's detailed account of which high school history textbooks accurately present certain facts and which ones omit them. Overall, this text uncovers aspects of American history that many of us are unaware of. For instance, I associated President Woodrow Wilson with his role in the founding of the League of Nations. However, I didn't know that Wilson was a white supremacist who attempted (albeit unsuccessfully) to ban African Americans from numerous government jobs and managed to segregate federal jobs.

There are reasons why many secondary school students find history dull. Instead of delving deeply into understanding historical periods and the context of events, students often have to memorize names and dates. The reasons for this extend beyond a conspiracy by the "haves" and publishing companies to prevent students from learning more controversial aspects of American history. While that is one factor, there are also competing values and stakeholders with different interests at play, such as ideas about the goals of education and teaching American history. Is the goal to develop students' pride in their nation and foster patriotism? Well, for some segments of American society, it is. Do we want to shield students from some of the more traumatic parts of our history? This can be a reason for both teachers and parents. African American parents may be concerned about their young children learning some of the more tragic aspects of Black history. More conservative parties may choose to depict westward expansion as American progress, but few American Indians would view the loss of their lands, way of life, and the majority of their people as progress.

By adhering to a bland version of American history, we avoid controversy (as well as critical thinking). One might wonder why the inquiry approach developed in the 1970s didn't gain traction. Well, aside from the many pressures that students and teachers face today to pass an increasing number of high-stakes tests, teachers simply don't have the time to conduct the research and put in the work required for this type of teaching in most schools.

Ironically, the author writes that while public school students are subjected to a dull brand of history that may suppress many controversial aspects of US history and be critical of our government, students of more affluent parents, attending private schools, are more likely to be exposed to a wide range of American history, even if it is more critical of their socio-economic class. This is the type of history, the author contends, that could empower students of traditionally marginalized groups - Latino, Black, American Indian, and immigrant students.

I read the first 200 pages but had to complete the remaining 40% of the book in less than a week. So, I obtained the audiobook and found it quite engaging to listen to.