Why do American history books lie?

[Terio]

Why do American history books (I'm talking about high school/grade school caliber) lie, or leave out certain things when talking about important events?

In my high school and grade schools especially, and in other American made history books I've seen, there is always some kind of obvious bias or down right lies about America in general. The one I'm mainly going to focus on is military, although there are many more you can note. I'm looking through one of my old textbooks right now and im going to flip through it to try and find some inaccurate facts or other things that stand out.
A couple of things I've noticed:

*LITTLE TO NO MENTION of the Eastern Front of World War II (the deciding factor of the war and the deadliest conflict in human history?)

*Also, no mention of the Soviets capturing Berlin to end the war in Europe. Can make people think the U.S. did.

*Little to no acknowledgment of the British/Commonwealth contribution to D-Day. Americans never really thank Britain for anything though.

*No mention of North Vietnam capturing South Vietnam. Kind of a big deal considering we fought a decade long war to PREVENT that from happening. Also, no mention of war crimes or other bad things the U.S. did in Vietnam.

*It says we won the Korean War, or was a "tactical success." Yea....no. It was a total stalemate and waste of life.

*Makes Britain and France look weak. (ex- It says "France and Britain could not have won without American support.) Can be argued, maybe.

*Tries to make excuses for American conquests (Mexican-American War, Spanish-American War.) Says the Spanish blew up the U.S.S. Maine for example, and that Mexico was claiming American territory.

*NO MENTION of Franco-Spanish support in the American Revolution. It was a huge factor.

*Says we won the War of 1812. Also, no mention of freaking NAPOLEON (besides the Louisiana Purchase a decade earlier.)

I'm sure I could find more but those are the main few that stick out to me. Now, why does this bother me you may ask?
Well, it makes American teenagers and young adults look like idiots. They end up not knowing a THING about basic history. They think America did everything, had a reasonable reason for everything, and that every other nation's contributions were useless. Then I see them on websites and in classrooms and such talking about military history, as if they truly know it, and say America's the best and stuff like that.
I saw this on the iPhone App iFunny earlier today:

"I what how German history books are like."
"I'd be like Well, we fucked up here, and here, a little bit here, big time here, also here, and there."

Then there were comments on it to, that said things like:

"French version. We ran away here, here, a little bit there, there, here."

Obviously neither of those are true, and makes me cry a little to see how uneducated America's youth is about world history. And you wonder why people from other countries hate us so much?

Your guy's thoughts?

[Bombadil]

I remember British history as coming to an end in 1945 when we won the world.

[Miss Defied]

It's easy to see why Americans are so Amerocentric isn't it?

At my kids' high school, there is only one class in the entire "social studies" curriculum that involves anything other than American history. And the one that does, while it is required, attempts to cram the entirety of world history since the dawn of mankind into one half-year course.

It is absolutely deplorable.

[Sjinnn]

My history book goes in depth about the Eeastern front during world war II. But thats about it.

[The Rebel Alliances]

I personally believe it is the feds trying to create Ultra-Nationalist of Americans. You know the type that believes America does no wrong and is God's answer to all the world's problems and every nation in the world.

Basically a cult of personality based on 'Uncle Sam' to have citzens worship America and its leaders regardless of what they do and pretty much just create a fascist like population.

In short, indoctrinating.

I had to go out and buy history books from independent authors and historians to find history I trusted.

But this is just my opinion.

[Dododecapod]

Depends on how you view things. Napoleon had litle or nothing to do with the war of 1812, so why mention him? Korea WAS a victory - we accomplished everything we set out to do going in. And EVERY country involved overplays it's part in WWII.
You're talking about basic textbooks. I would prefer they went into things somewhat more in-depth (having a history degree myself...) but as a basic overview US textbooks aren't too bad.

[Jagalonia]

Because 'Murica.

[The Grand World Order]

I'm seriously wondering where you went to school... that doesn't sound anything like what I was taught. I mean, we were taught specifically that the USS Maine was almost certainly not sunk by the Spanish, and we actually spent some time covering the concept of yellow journalism, for example.

[Lowell Leber]

Why do American history books (I'm talking about high school/grade school caliber) lie, or leave out certain things when talking about important events?

In my high school and grade schools especially, and in other American made history books I've seen, there is always some kind of obvious bias or down right lies about America in general. The one I'm mainly going to focus on is military, although there are many more you can note. I'm looking through one of my old textbooks right now and im going to flip through it to try and find some inaccurate facts or other things that stand out.
A couple of things I've noticed:

*LITTLE TO NO MENTION of the Eastern Front of World War II (the deciding factor of the war and the deadliest conflict in human history?)

*Also, no mention of the Soviets capturing Berlin to end the war in Europe. Can make people think the U.S. did.

*Little to no acknowledgment of the British/Commonwealth contribution to D-Day. Americans never really thank Britain for anything though.

*No mention of North Vietnam capturing South Vietnam. Kind of a big deal considering we fought a decade long war to PREVENT that from happening. Also, no mention of war crimes or other bad things the U.S. did in Vietnam.

*It says we won the Korean War, or was a "tactical success." Yea....no. It was a total stalemate and waste of life.

*Makes Britain and France look weak. (ex- It says "France and Britain could not have won without American support.) Can be argued, maybe.

*Tries to make excuses for American conquests (Mexican-American War, Spanish-American War.) Says the Spanish blew up the U.S.S. Maine for example, and that Mexico was claiming American territory.

*NO MENTION of Franco-Spanish support in the American Revolution. It was a huge factor.

*Says we won the War of 1812. Also, no mention of freaking NAPOLEON (besides the Louisiana Purchase a decade earlier.)

I'm sure I could find more but those are the main few that stick out to me. Now, why does this bother me you may ask?
Well, it makes American teenagers and young adults look like idiots. They end up not knowing a THING about basic history. They think America did everything, had a reasonable reason for everything, and that every other nation's contributions were useless. Then I see them on websites and in classrooms and such talking about military history, as if they truly know it, and say America's the best and stuff like that.
I saw this on the iPhone App iFunny earlier today:

"I what how German history books are like."
"I'd be like Well, we fucked up here, and here, a little bit here, big time here, also here, and there."

Then there were comments on it to, that said things like:

"French version. We ran away here, here, a little bit there, there, here."

Obviously neither of those are true, and makes me cry a little to see how uneducated America's youth is about world history. And you wonder why people from other countries hate us so much?

Your guy's thoughts?

I am almost 30, but I remember learning about almost all of the points you mentioned while in secondary school.
1. Korea was a tactical success. Look up what defines a "tactical success".
2. In the Spanish-American War, the US went to war because we thought the Spanish had blown up the Maine. I remember it being clearly explained in my high school history books that this most likely didnt happen.

[Bombadil]

I'm seriously wondering where you went to school... that doesn't sound anything like what I was taught.

Sure, but you're Spanish.

[Mussoliniopoli]

Depends on how you view things. Napoleon had litle or nothing to do with the war of 1812, so why mention him? Korea WAS a victory - we accomplished everything we set out to do going in. And EVERY country involved overplays it's part in WWII.
You're talking about basic textbooks. I would prefer they went into things somewhat more in-depth (having a history degree myself...) but as a basic overview US textbooks aren't too bad.

They are meh for a general overview but pretty shit in any kind of serious balance. No mention of United Fruit Corps., no discussion of concentration camps in the Philippines, 1812 is spun as a purely defensive war when in reality it was failed invasion of Canada, Native Americans are typically turned into two dimensional caricatures. The problem is that for many Americans this is going to be their only real exposure to their history for probably their entire lives. I would prefer some balance and reality in the book.

[Cannot think of a name]

*LITTLE TO NO MENTION of the Eastern Front of World War II (the deciding factor of the war and the deadliest conflict in human history?)

Learned that in high school.

*Also, no mention of the Soviets capturing Berlin to end the war in Europe. Can make people think the U.S. did.

Learned that too.

*Little to no acknowledgment of the British/Commonwealth contribution to D-Day. Americans never really thank Britain for anything though.

Covered that.

*No mention of North Vietnam capturing South Vietnam. Kind of a big deal considering we fought a decade long war to PREVENT that from happening. Also, no mention of war crimes or other bad things the U.S. did in Vietnam.

That too.

*It says we won the Korean War, or was a "tactical success." Yea....no. It was a total stalemate and waste of life.

Never once heard anyone refer to the Korean War as a victory, in or out of school.

*Makes Britain and France look weak. (ex- It says "France and Britain could not have won without American support.) Can be argued, maybe.

This...seems like a reach.

*Tries to make excuses for American conquests (Mexican-American War, Spanish-American War.) Says the Spanish blew up the U.S.S. Maine for example, and that Mexico was claiming American territory.

Huh?

*NO MENTION of Franco-Spanish support in the American Revolution. It was a huge factor.

Great, because they made a huge deal about it in high school.

*Says we won the War of 1812. Also, no mention of freaking NAPOLEON (besides the Louisiana Purchase a decade earlier.)

Really? We covered Napoleon during World History.

Your guy's thoughts?

Your school sucked? I mean, I was educated in California man. That's not a high bar to clear. You might want to start paying attention to your school board elections or something.

[Mesairien]

Initial thoughts? Shock mostly.

I'm not American and never looked at one of your textbooks but if what you say is true, my lord the state your in needs to get some decent European Historians over to sort your sh*t out, or at the very least to stop teaching out of such crappy textbooks.

And actually, thinking about it, some of those points (You should probably source them by the way) make sense considering the almost ignorant views of some Americans I've encountered.
Though, most acknowledged Vietnam was more of a loss than a win, the 1812 war was a draw (Debatable with most though), that the French helped during the Revolution - though the extent is always up in the air and that the Commonwealth was at the very least there on D-Day.

Other than that... the conversations I've had usually follow the same lines in the OP - fuck, your school needs some serious Historical Revision it seems.

[Seperates]

Having taken and passed A.P. U.S. history, we actually talked about ALL of those things that you complained about.

So you must just have a crappy history class.

[Terio]

Depends on how you view things. Napoleon had litle or nothing to do with the war of 1812, so why mention him? Korea WAS a victory - we accomplished everything we set out to do going in. And EVERY country involved overplays it's part in WWII.
You're talking about basic textbooks. I would prefer they went into things somewhat more in-depth (having a history degree myself...) but as a basic overview US textbooks aren't too bad.

True about Napoleon, but its the same thing the the Revolution. Its makes Americans think they defeated all of Britain on their own with little to no foreign intervention.

Korea was not a victory. The U.N. failed to unite Korea. So did North Korea and China. Therefore, stalemate it is.

I wouldn't really know about the WW2 part, but I just think American textbooks should mention more about the Eastern Front, at least the important stuff, Stalingrad, Kursk, etc.

[Cannot think of a name]

I remember British history as coming to an end in 1945 when we won the world.

You know what's sad...I know who Tom Bombadil is and yet I just now got your name.

Ain't no flies on me...

[Bombadil]

I remember British history as coming to an end in 1945 when we won the world.

You know what's sad...I know who Tom Bombadil is and yet I just now got your name.

Ain't no flies on me...

Well the avatar is very misleading.

[Maklohi Vai]

*LITTLE TO NO MENTION of the Eastern Front of World War II (the deciding factor of the war and the deadliest conflict in human history?)

Learned that in high school.

*Also, no mention of the Soviets capturing Berlin to end the war in Europe. Can make people think the U.S. did.

Learned that too.

*Little to no acknowledgment of the British/Commonwealth contribution to D-Day. Americans never really thank Britain for anything though.

Covered that.

*No mention of North Vietnam capturing South Vietnam. Kind of a big deal considering we fought a decade long war to PREVENT that from happening. Also, no mention of war crimes or other bad things the U.S. did in Vietnam.

That too.

*It says we won the Korean War, or was a "tactical success." Yea....no. It was a total stalemate and waste of life.

Never once heard anyone refer to the Korean War as a victory, in or out of school.

*Makes Britain and France look weak. (ex- It says "France and Britain could not have won without American support.) Can be argued, maybe.

This...seems like a reach.

*Tries to make excuses for American conquests (Mexican-American War, Spanish-American War.) Says the Spanish blew up the U.S.S. Maine for example, and that Mexico was claiming American territory.

Huh?

*NO MENTION of Franco-Spanish support in the American Revolution. It was a huge factor.

Great, because they made a huge deal about it in high school.

*Says we won the War of 1812. Also, no mention of freaking NAPOLEON (besides the Louisiana Purchase a decade earlier.)

Really? We covered Napoleon during World History.

Your guy's thoughts?

Your school sucked? I mean, I was educated in California man. That's not a high bar to clear. You might want to start paying attention to your school board elections or something.

I've got pretty much the same situation as Cannot think of a name. Educated in Cali, and learned all that stuff, along with some pretty gruesome war crime info.

[Defensor]

Why do American history books (I'm talking about high school/grade school caliber) lie, or leave out certain things when talking about important events?

In my high school and grade schools especially, and in other American made history books I've seen, there is always some kind of obvious bias or down right lies about America in general. The one I'm mainly going to focus on is military, although there are many more you can note. I'm looking through one of my old textbooks right now and im going to flip through it to try and find some inaccurate facts or other things that stand out.
A couple of things I've noticed:

*LITTLE TO NO MENTION of the Eastern Front of World War II (the deciding factor of the war and the deadliest conflict in human history?)

*Also, no mention of the Soviets capturing Berlin to end the war in Europe. Can make people think the U.S. did.

*Little to no acknowledgment of the British/Commonwealth contribution to D-Day. Americans never really thank Britain for anything though.

*No mention of North Vietnam capturing South Vietnam. Kind of a big deal considering we fought a decade long war to PREVENT that from happening. Also, no mention of war crimes or other bad things the U.S. did in Vietnam.

*It says we won the Korean War, or was a "tactical success." Yea....no. It was a total stalemate and waste of life.

*Makes Britain and France look weak. (ex- It says "France and Britain could not have won without American support.) Can be argued, maybe.

*Tries to make excuses for American conquests (Mexican-American War, Spanish-American War.) Says the Spanish blew up the U.S.S. Maine for example, and that Mexico was claiming American territory.

*NO MENTION of Franco-Spanish support in the American Revolution. It was a huge factor.

*Says we won the War of 1812. Also, no mention of freaking NAPOLEON (besides the Louisiana Purchase a decade earlier.)

I'm sure I could find more but those are the main few that stick out to me. Now, why does this bother me you may ask?
Well, it makes American teenagers and young adults look like idiots. They end up not knowing a THING about basic history. They think America did everything, had a reasonable reason for everything, and that every other nation's contributions were useless. Then I see them on websites and in classrooms and such talking about military history, as if they truly know it, and say America's the best and stuff like that.
I saw this on the iPhone App iFunny earlier today:

"I what how German history books are like."
"I'd be like Well, we fucked up here, and here, a little bit here, big time here, also here, and there."

Then there were comments on it to, that said things like:

"French version. We ran away here, here, a little bit there, there, here."

Obviously neither of those are true, and makes me cry a little to see how uneducated America's youth is about world history. And you wonder why people from other countries hate us so much?

Your guy's thoughts?

Who cares. It's America and we are Americans. Everyone's history books are going to be a bit biased.

Also, the fact that you cry over this crap...

Edit: You also had bad history books, cause I've literally studied all that in high school/college. And I'm in America...

[The Grand World Order]

I'm in the same boat as the "Wtf you must have a shitty school" crowd, and I'm from Colorado. The OP has yet to disclose which state they're from, where textbooks apparently lie.

[Jagalonia]

Depends on how you view things. Napoleon had litle or nothing to do with the war of 1812, so why mention him? Korea WAS a victory - we accomplished everything we set out to do going in. And EVERY country involved overplays it's part in WWII.
You're talking about basic textbooks. I would prefer they went into things somewhat more in-depth (having a history degree myself...) but as a basic overview US textbooks aren't too bad.

Napoleon kept the britts busy for most of the war. When his reign had ended, Brittan was then free to send a lot of support to Canada to aid the soldiers there. It wasn't long after Waterloo that the US offered a peace treaty.

[Zweite Alaje]

OP, where the hell do you live? Your school must be getting some bottom of the barrel funding.

[Lowell Leber]

Depends on how you view things. Napoleon had litle or nothing to do with the war of 1812, so why mention him? Korea WAS a victory - we accomplished everything we set out to do going in. And EVERY country involved overplays it's part in WWII.
You're talking about basic textbooks. I would prefer they went into things somewhat more in-depth (having a history degree myself...) but as a basic overview US textbooks aren't too bad.

True about Napoleon, but its the same thing the the Revolution. Its makes Americans think they defeated all of Britain on their own with little to no foreign intervention.

Korea was not a victory. The U.N. failed to unite Korea. So did North Korea and China. Therefore, stalemate it is.

I wouldn't really know about the WW2 part, but I just think American textbooks should mention more about the Eastern Front, at least the important stuff, Stalingrad, Kursk, etc.

The UN was there to defend South Korea, not to unite it with North Korea....
Edit: UNSC Resolution #82:


The Security Council,
Recalling the finding of the General Assembly in its resolution 293 (IV) of 21 October 1949 that the Government of the Republic of Korea is a lawfully established government having effective control and jurisdiction over that Part of Korea where the United Nations Temporary Commission on Korea was able to observe and consult and in which the great majority of the people of Korea reside; that this Government is based on elections which were a valid expression of the free will of the electorate of that part of Korea and which were observed by the Temporary Commission, and that this is the only such Government in Korea,

Mindful of the concern expressed by the General Assembly in its resolutions 195 (III) of 12 December 1948 and 293 (IV) of 21 October 1949 about the consequences which might follow unless Member States refrained from acts derogatory to the results sought to be achieved by the United Nations in bringing about the complete independence and unity of Korea; and the concern expressed that the situation described by the United Nations Commission on Korea in its report menaces the safety and well-being of the Republic of Korea and of the people of Korea and might lead to open military conflict there,

Noting with grave concern the armed attack on the Republic of Korea by forces from North Korea,

Determines that this action constitutes a breach of the peace; and

I
Calls for the immediate cessation of hostilities;

Calls upon the authorities in North Korea to withdraw forthwith their armed forces to the 38th parallel;

II
Requests the United Nations Commission on Korea:

(a) To communicate its fully considered recommendations on the situation with the least possible delay;

(b) To observe the withdrawal of North Korean forces to the 38th parallel;

(c) To keep the Security Council informed on the execution of this resolution:

III
Calls upon all Member States to render every assistance to the United Nations in the execution of this resolution and. to refrain from giving assistance to the North Korean authorities.

[The Grand World Order]

OP, where the hell do you live? Your school must be getting some bottom of the barrel funding.

I'm going to guess Texas. Then it'd start sounding realistic.

[Le Mars]

It is absolutely deplorable.

It's also not just limited to us. Japanese school books, for example, for years could not legally mention the Rape of Nanking at all. I don't know if that's still the case. Every nation is likely to heavily focus primarily on themselves, and try to make themselves look good. We are not the first, and we are certainly not the worst.

I do, however, agree that history lessons ought to be considerably more extensive, more informative, and more educational. That's what school is supposed to be about.