Why do American history books lie?

[The Archregimancy]

because you're an asshole who should get cancer

What a nice thing to say...to whom was this well wishing directed towards?

the asshole who started this ignorant uncultured european thread

Thank you for clarifying the target of your flame.

Please take a *** 1-day break *** to mull over your actions.

If it had just been the 'asshole', a warning would have sufficed. Actively wishing cancer on someone in addition to the flame warrants the break.

[Jagalonia]

I'm pretty sure either Russia or China actualy re-wrote their history books, to make the current leader look better.

If it was China, we'll never know for sure, because they banned time travel. =.=

[Benuty]

I'm pretty sure either Russia or China actualy re-wrote their history books, to make the current leader look better.

If it was China, we'll never know for sure, because they banned time travel. =.=

not surprised French history books did the same with the Indochinese war "except the Viet-minh were amoral rebels who slaughtered children and women and killed French citizens" compared to the view held by many that the Vietnamese rebels were freedom fighters fighting colonialism.

[Forsher]

It happens, I personally have little difficulty remembering German names (spellings... that's interesting, I'm pretty sure Stresemann is spelt like that not Stresseman, it got iffy for some reason) and if anyone points at my signature... you probably can't speak or read German either. However, some of my friends were complaining about that so...



Surely a simple Google search and comparison of the number of results will settle this?

If you could reliably simulate the results of a survey with a google search, people wouldn't do surveys anymore. (It's spelled Stresemann, yes.)

Well, your argument is based on the idea that the Reichstag matters much more. If that is indeed the case, it'll have more results.

[AiliailiA]

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?

You mentioned on page 3 that you attend a public high school near St Louis Missouri, but I don't think you mentioned which course this textbook was set for.

Textbooks have names don't they? Could you tell us the name, publisher, and publishing date (which you'll usually find at the bottom of the reverse side of the first sheet, but which may also be on the back of the front cover. First publishing date, date of the most recent edit/edition, and the most recent date there are all relevant.

[Laerod]

If you could reliably simulate the results of a survey with a google search, people wouldn't do surveys anymore. (It's spelled Stresemann, yes.)

Well, your argument is based on the idea that the Reichstag matters much more. If that is indeed the case, it'll have more results.

No it's not. It's based on the idea that unlike the other parliaments in German schools, the Reichstag gets mentioned in US history classes. This implies rather than proves that Americans will more likely have heard of the Reichstag than Germans have heard of the Duma, etc.

[Forsher]

Well, your argument is based on the idea that the Reichstag matters much more. If that is indeed the case, it'll have more results.

No it's not. It's based on the idea that unlike the other parliaments in German schools, the Reichstag gets mentioned in US history classes. This implies rather than proves that Americans will more likely have heard of the Reichstag than Germans have heard of the Duma, etc.

Oh, I see. I thought you meant that the Reichstag was more important in a historical context overall. Forgive me?

Anyway, I had a quick look and sadly it isn't so simple. There's a lot of irrelevant Duma's out there.

Duma Russia, however, still gets more results than Reichstag, which surprises me. Althugh it gets considerably more results than Reichstag Germany.

The gap narrows significantly when limited to pages from the US.

Based on what I have just seen, we should, in all likelihood, be more aware of "Duma" than "Reichstag" as things. This runs contrary to my personal experience having been aware of Duma for a matter of hours.

[Ethel mermania]

if anything, we oversimplified domeatic events, but as far as international, we covered everything you speak of in hs, with the exception of the fact thr soviets won the seconf world war.

[AiliailiA]

Knowing who wrote the textbook, who published it, who selected it for the school and who payed for it, would in itself be a study of Modern American History. Worth a study period I'd say.

[Laerod]

No it's not. It's based on the idea that unlike the other parliaments in German schools, the Reichstag gets mentioned in US history classes. This implies rather than proves that Americans will more likely have heard of the Reichstag than Germans have heard of the Duma, etc.

Oh, I see. I thought you meant that the Reichstag was more important in a historical context overall. Forgive me?

Anyway, I had a quick look and sadly it isn't so simple. There's a lot of irrelevant Duma's out there.

Duma Russia, however, still gets more results than Reichstag, which surprises me. Althugh it gets considerably more results than Reichstag Germany.

The gap narrows significantly when limited to pages from the US.

Based on what I have just seen, we should, in all likelihood, be more aware of "Duma" than "Reichstag" as things. This runs contrary to my personal experience having been aware of Duma for a matter of hours.

Might partly be because the Reichstag has only referred to the building itself as of the 1930s and 40s and that has only been in use again since the 1990s. So it's not really been generating any news stories the way that a functioning parliament like the Duma or Sejm have.

[Arkinesia]

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:

Corrections inbound.

*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.

US troops entered in 1954 and left in 1975. I'm no mathematician but I'm pretty sure that comes out to 21, not 10.

Additionally, North Vietnam violated the terms of a peace treaty agreed to in 1973.

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

It was a tactical success, though. We showed the Chinese and the Russians that we wouldn't back down from defending critical allies in the Cold War.

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

France was one of the strongest armies in Europe and fell to the Nazis in a whopping 17 days.

I fail to see how WWII could have been won in Europe without American intervention. Not really arguable.

*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.

My high school history books made mention of both of these, and said the Spanish subterfuge claim was most likely a falsehood.

I don't know what kind of shit history textbooks you've been assigned but I would consider contacting your local school board. All that aside, my history professor actually explained this yesterday in class—historians get together and argue different theories on things that happened in the past and whoever has the most coherent story is usually the guy who wins and gets his stuff put in a textbook.

So there you go.

[Czechanada]

Just survive until university. That's when you'll actually start learning things and have actual fun.

[Ceannairceach]

Perhaps I'm biased by having been in AP and Honors classes for all of my history career in high school, but I'll attempt to answer these questions.

*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?)

Depending on the history course, it can be irrelevant. I wouldn't expect an American history book to make more than a passing mention to the Eastern Front, for example. In my World History class, however, we made a point of dedicating time to the study of all three fronts. So... I don't quite know what you're talking about.

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

Who captured Berlin is largely irrelevant as well. If a student wants to know it, they can ask the teacher or look it up. It isn't included in American History textbooks because it doesn't involve America, for example. It's likely mentioned in passing in World History books, though.

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

Why should we "thank" the British in our textbooks? The Canadians could use a shout out, maybe, but the point of history books is to say the history, not thank our allies. And in my books, we had comprehensive maps of the D-Day landing. So... No.

*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.

Again, my book had a section dedicated to the fall of Vietnam and how it proved the Domino Effect to be wrong. War crimes were mentioned, but were kept short and to the point. It wasn't "ohmagerd Americans were evil", but rather "here's what happened, here are the statistics."
*It says we won the Korean War, or was a "tactical success." Yea....no. It was a total stalemate and waste of life.
It was a victory for the United States; We preserved South Korean independence from its northern neighbor. Also, that wasn't a all American-Korean conflict. There were Turks, Chinese, Greeks, Canadians, Brits...

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

They couldn't have. It is generally accepted that America entering the war saved Britain and France. Certainly France, who was already fallen at that point, and most likely Britain, who was an island of independence. If we contributed to the Soviet victory with our economic aid is more debatable.

*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.

Not in my textbook. Perhaps you should ask for updated ones. Mine says that the USS Maine was possibly a fraudulent case, and that the American claims were Texas, which was disputed, and other land with unclear ownership.

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

Yeah, no. We had mentions galore of the missions to France and, to a somewhat lesser extent, Spain.

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

Mine didn't say that. Mine said it was, for lack of a better term, a tie. Napoleon wouldn't be mentioned in an American history book, and in my World History class, again, we studied him and the period for at least a week.

So.. In short, I think you should either take AP classes or demand updated books.

[Demara]

Textbooks have names don't they? Could you tell us the name, publisher, and publishing date (which you'll usually find at the bottom of the reverse side of the first sheet, but which may also be on the back of the front cover. First publishing date, date of the most recent edit/edition, and the most recent date there are all relevant.

I'd also be very interested in this. I attended high school in the States (in the city of Chicago, no less) and we covered most events on the list (the sinking of the USS Maine, in particular, was used as a way of describing the practice of yellow journalism in that period, so that fact was definitely something we covered). It would be enlightening to see which textbook this is, for which class, and when it was published.

[Liriena]

I was aware that every single aspect of the American educational system was American-centered and extremely nationalistic...but that's just an absurd amount of fundamental historical inaccuracies for the sake of preserving the "AMERICA, FUCK YEAH!" attitude in the population.

For crying out loud, I can't believe that my own country's educational system actually beats Americans on history.

Out of my 6 years in the Argentine high school system, 3 were devoted to world history, 1 to history of the American continent, and 2 to Argentine history. By the time I graduated I knew everything that, apparently, American textbooks ignore, and more.

America, get your shit together. You can't be beaten by Argieland, of all countries.

EDIT: After a closer revision, I believe my generalization was quite hasty. Apparently, not all American schools teach their children this sort of nationalistic dogma. I can now breathe with relief.

[Conserative Morality]

What history textbooks have you been reading?

[Greed and Death]

Those are omissions and matters of opinion and hence incapable of being lies.

[Person012345]

*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.

Because COMMUNISM.

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

Ah, we know you guys love us really.

*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.

Vietnam is a communist lie.

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

Did your history books leave it out completely? North Korea tried to invade South Korea. The fact that we held them back and kept it at a stalemate meant it was a victory.

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

France is totally weak, and tbf we couldn't have won without your support.

*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.)

Because FUCK YEAH 'MERICA!

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

That one is totally true.

[Tel]

Vietnam was lost to us because of the hippies and communists! If anyone is to be blamed, it is Lenin and those marijuana-smoking long-haired hamby-pamby nutjobs living in the basements of their parents! America can do anything without those factors in the way!

In all seriousness, American history books are a joke because the American education system is a joke. Fix the second, fix the first. It's not rocket surgery.

[S-Mart]

The problem is there is no such thing as "The American education system" really. Textbooks vary not just state to state but county to county and sometimes school to school. I grew up in the Midwest, and my major textbook for history class was "A People's History of the United States," which is often critical of America's past action. But even still there was a rather US-centric nature to my historical education. But that is also the case elsewhere, that they tend to focus on their own nation's role in history. Bias is unavoidable.

[Warinemachine]

Maybe but when liberals write them they are worse. Or anybody because nobody until high school has the mental capacity to form their own opinions *nod*.

[Vetalia]

*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?)

Because it's an American history course which focuses on the American involvement in WWII and the impact on our country.

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

Same as above. If anything, the Soviet portion of WWII is only relevant in American history courses due to the events leading to the development of the Cold War.

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

Again, American history course. Teaching what everyone else did would distract from the focus on American history and turn it into a world history course, which is a completely different set of subject matter.

*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.

I don't know, I recall that being mentioned (along with photos of people being airlifted from the U.S. Embassy and whatnot). Even if it's not mentioned, the end of substantial U.S. involvement in Vietnam ended a couple of years before the North invaded and conquered the South so anything that happened after that is far more relevant to Vietnamese history than U.S.

And of course, no mention of war crimes isn't surprising considering most countries are biased and like to focus on the positive aspects of their history. I wonder how much the Russian textbooks discuss the massive incidence of rape, murder and looting following the defeat of the Germans, or the postwar forced dismantling of Eastern European industry for reconstruction in the USSR? Probably not very much, if at all.

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

The North Koreans failed to "liberate" South Korea, a fact which they are still quite unhappy about to this day. I'd say that's a tactical victory for the U.S..

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

I guess that would depend on whether it's true or not. Sort of tough to really argue one way or another and well beyond the scope of a HS American history class.

*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.

I've never seen the veracity of the claims stated or justified, only presented as the causus belli of the war at the time.

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

Again, ancedotal but our history texts did in fact mention the French support for the US during the Revolution.

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

We did win the War of 1812, status quo ante bellum is a victory for the defending country. And mention of Napoleon in more than the context of his impact on American history is appropriate...if you want to learn more about him, take a French history course.

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.

Your guy's thoughts?

I would be very interested to see how much people from other countries know about American history and how their own history textbooks present the U.S.'s role in their own history. I doubt it's substantially different from the way we present ours.

[Laeriland]

Are US history books biased? No more than most other nations ones to be honest.

[Tmutarakhan]

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:

Corrections inbound.

*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.

US troops entered in 1954 and left in 1975. I'm no mathematician but I'm pretty sure that comes out to 21, not 10.

There were only a handful of advisers until 1965, which is when we started sending in troops by the hundreds of thousands.

[Zottistan]

All history books are biased. Literally every last one of them.