Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong By James W. Loewen

Some years ago, a history teacher was quoted as saying, “The doctor buries his mistakes, ours walk the streets.” James Loewen sets out to minimize these mistakes. The problem, he believes, is not teachers, but history textbooks. So his chosen title is not only misleading, but can be perceived as an insult to teachers, an important part of his intended audience. For the first (1995) edition, Loewen evaluated 12 books; for second edition (2007), he evaluated 6 additional books. The 2018 version is a reprint of the 2007 edition with a new preface.

Loewen contends that these books (around 1,000 pages in length and 6 pounds in weight) are too long, and too focused on myriad facts (which students soon forget), rather than explanations about major movements and events from which they could learn how to separate evidence from opinion. The books engage in hero worship; they tend to see Europeans as a chosen people; they imply that the course of events was inevitable, and that major problems (such as racism) have been solved; and they neglect the recent past, the period which many students would find most relevant.

Loewen contends that history “is not just an inert body of facts to be memorized,” but something that “remains to be done.” For the pre-colonial period, this means considering how the Western Hemisphere was originally populated. How many Native Americans lived here in the 15th century, and what was their manner of living? Who was first European to discover the New World? For these and certain other questions, Loewen writes, schools should present theories and evidence, not incontestable conclusions.

Loewen sees Columbus as both hero and villain. His explorations and settlements were of great importance, as were the pandemics and Indian slavery he imposed on the natives. Loewen tends to treat Indians as a monolithic group. He has little to say about conflicts between tribes. (He does not mention the alliance with the Tlascalans that helped Cortės conquer the Aztecs.) Many textbooks overlook the important factors that shaped the European response after 1492. Loewen points out that textbooks tend to treat the Pilgrims as the original settlers, while minimizing the efforts of the Spanish, the French, and the Dutch. These books generally say little about Jamestown. Thanksgiving grew out native customs, and the Pilgrims’ thanksgiving was ably assisted by Indians. The books neglect the impact of European diseases that wiped out whole Indian communities, opening some areas to European settlement.

About the American Revolution, Loewen has little to say, although some recent scholars view the Revolution as America’s first civil war, and the conflict had special meaning for blacks and for Native Americans. Loewen contends that white domination of blacks has been “Perhaps the most pervasive theme in our history,” and race “the sharpest and deepest division in American life.” Although some early textbooks were reluctant to admit it, slavery was the main cause of the Civil War, and of several Indian wars. Loewen points out that textbooks neglect slavery in the North. Also neglected is the “nadir” of race relations in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Loewen notes that, while, the 12 books he evaluated for his 1995 book view Reconstruction as a period of corruption, fraud, repression (while overlooking how Reconstruction regimes were overthrown), the newer books are better, although they too minimize racism, Jim Crow, black disenfranchisement, and race riots. There was discrimination against Asians during this period, but Loewen overlooks the Chinese Exclusion Act, and the Gentlemen’s Agreement between the U.S. and Japan to limit Japanese immigration to the United States.

Loewen calls attention to Woodrow Wilson’s racist policies, and his intervention in Latin America. He does not discuss the 1920s legislation that drastically restricted immigration, the discriminatory policies of the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation, the unsympathetic U.S. response to Jewish refugees from Hitler’s Germany, or the wartime internment of Japanese-Americans. Loewen describes how textbooks neglect U.S. efforts to destabilize or overthrow foreign governments. On the other hand, he notes that these books tend to give the federal government credit for civil rights legislation without mentioning outside pressures that brought it about, or FBI work against civil rights organizations (but Loewen does not reveal the full scope of FBI activities, for example, failing to mention FBI investigations of Jackie Robinson or Eleanor Roosevelt).

Loewen laments the ignorance of modern students, who are often unaware of such basic facts as the dates of the Civil War, or which countries fought in the Vietnam War. He asserts that, “the more courses students take the stupider they become,” and attempts to document this rather controversial statement by analyzing the results of a January 1971 opinion poll about the Vietnam War. This poll was actually about withdrawal of American troops from Vietnam (which at that time was U.S. policy). It separated respondents by date: those for withdrawal by December 1971 Loewen classified as Doves; those for withdrawal after December 1971 he categorized as Hawks. (It is perhaps unnecessary to note that some who wanted troops pulled out in 1971 might have been Hawks wishing to continue the war without U.S. ground troops; and some of those who favored withdrawal after December 1971 might have been Doves who simply opposed what they regarded as precipitate withdrawal.) In any case, the polls hardly substantiate Loewen’s thesis. They show that respondents with a high-school education were 5% more hawkish than those with only a grade school education. But respondents with a college education were 15% more hawkish than those with a high school education. Loewen speculates that the college group was more hawkish because they were more invested in the system, believing that it has rewarded them for their superior merit. But he says that those lacking similar academic and economic status also accepted the results of the system. In other words, they and the college group were equally invested in the system. Loewen also suggests that views of the college group were shaped by socialization, through which they had internalized the rules that facilitate functioning in society. He does not indicate why the college group should be more susceptible to this process than less educated persons. And it seems we cannot attribute college group’s greater hawkishness to high school history textbooks, because fewer than 1 in 5 of them took any college history courses—and those who did, presumably, did not study high school textbooks. So Loewen has failed to demonstrate his contention that greater education leads to greater ignorance.

Loewen’s focus is on colored peoples, especially blacks and Native Americans. He tends to overlook other minority groups. He knows there are other “lies” in history texts—regarding, for example, women’s history, other gender-related issues, religion, the environment, and wealth inequality—but he could not deal with all of them, and he does not wish to become an arbitrator of all the issues in American history. (“I who surely still unknowingly accept all manner of hoary legends as historical fact.”)

One of the most revealing sections of Loewen’s book explores how history textbooks are prepared. They are not written by historians, but by freelance writers who know little about history. Sometimes these writers copy from other textbooks. The historians whose names are associated with these books apparently wrote little or nothing in them. Loewen evidently does not know whether publishing contracts gave these historians much freedom to revise the texts actually written by others. The books must be approved by textbook adoption boards. Those who rate the textbooks face the daunting task of applying scores of evaluation factors to these massive texts. Thorough consideration of their contents is nearly impossible, so the tendency is to judge them by appearances and ancillary materials (lecture notes, websites, etc.). As Loewen notes, the resulting books have drawn criticism from both liberals and conservatives. Publishers are driven by financial considerations, and would presumably produce more liberal, or more conservative, textbooks it there were a large market for them. But, as it is, writers seek to avoid controversy, so there has never been a left-wing or a right-wing textbook.

Some reviewers have accused Loewen of liberal bias. In fact, he is not imposing his interpretations, but arguing for a method of study. And he concedes, “Right-wing textbook critics are rightly incensed” by the absence of religion in textbooks. He wants books to include smaller groups of more relevant facts. His own views are still inchoate. (“If my tone has been too certain, know too, that my own conclusions . . . are still in flux.”) For example, he presents possible interpretations of the Vietnam war, but never indicates which he prefers. He concludes that, “Columbus’s importance in history owes precisely to his being both a heroic navigator and a great plunderer.” But he writes that history “must not judge Columbus by standards from our own time,” and notes that Indians enslaved Indians; Africans enslaved Africans; and Europeans enslaved Europeans. “I am not proposing that we should begin courses of American history by crying out that Columbus was bad and so are we. Textbooks should show that neither morality nor immorality can simply be conferred upon us by history.” He wants Americans to become independent detectives “who can sift through arguments and evidence and make reasoned judgments.” He suggests that history classes should supplement their regular history textbook with either a more conservative or more liberal book. By studying such books, students could gain perspective on their regular texts. (He suggests books by either Clarence Carson or Howard Zinn.) Even with existing textbooks, history classes could be improved by adding student projects in local history, family history, or oral history.

Loewen is surely correct that there is a need for good history teaching. The mainstream media (criticized from both right and left) can be manipulated by officials and politicians, and often simply repeats official statements, or offers he said/she said presentations. There is a decreasing amount of investigative journalism. Talk shows feature extremist pundits. Students need to go beyond the mainstream media to be ready to face such future issues as an energy crisis, loss of natural resources, environmental degradation, and nuclear proliferation.

The book’s back matter includes a 2-page appendix listing the 18 books with which Loewen worked. There are 73 pages of notes, including suggestions for improving history teaching–some notes are substantive, with information that might have been included in the narrative itself. Unfortunately, the 10-page index does not include any entries for the notes. Interspersed through the volume are illustrations of persons, places, events, and documents.

I read this years ago and it started me on a lifetime of correcting old myths in my education. Just bought it again to give it an honored place in my home library.

Enlightening other side to public school books

I read it I liked it. Super great. How many more words until I have met the minimum word requirements?

Very good exposition of how recent American historiography has left the average American with an incomplete grasp of their own history and therefore an incomplete picture of America as a whole.
A well balanced look at what history books have and have not included, and why.
A must read for anyone interested, not just in American history, but in how we access history and how that shapes our view of ourselves.

I love this book, wow. I read it years ago and recently wanted to cite it in my Cap stone and I’d forgotten what a amazing read it is. Highly recommend

I’m not going to offer a synopsis, here.

Instead, I’m going to give the charge: everyone residing in the United States of America, citizen or not, needs to read LIES MY TEACHER TOLD ME.

Why?

We have a responsibility to the community we live in and society at large to critically examine American history and its impact on everyone.

What is written by humans is never free from biases, prejudices, or agendas.

We should more closely examine what is presented as American history. Instead of accepting what we’re given as brute facts, we need to ask questions. Check out Loewen’s Afterword. He suggests five questions to consider.