Why do American history books lie?

[Forge Alfa-Niner-Six]

EVERY nation's history textbooks lie. The most egregious examples I've seen are the Japanese history books. Why don't you go take a look at those before finding yet another excuse to slam Americans.

[Homosexy]

Because it makes the government look better

[Homosexy]

EVERY nation's history textbooks lie. The most egregious examples I've seen are the Japanese history books. Why don't you go take a look at those before finding yet another excuse to slam Americans.

This

[Phocidaea]

My US History books were actually remarkably good at all the areas of your criticism. It was much, much better than the dimbulb teacher who was supposed to teach us this stuff.

The reason American history books lie is because "history is written by the victors". Whether you like it or not, the wealthiest, most militarily powerful, third largest and third most populous country in the whole world kind of deserves some right to brag. I doubt foreign books are much better, anyway... do British students learn all about how valuable the fucking Falklands are?

Besides, actually knowing history, even in a perfect world, is something best reserved for those who have the mental faculties to do so.

[Souseiseki]

EVERY nation's history textbooks lie. The most egregious examples I've seen are the Japanese history books. Why don't you go take a look at those before finding yet another excuse to slam Americans.

you were doing pretty well with this post, starting off with facts and a good anecdotal example, then you delved into SO EVERYONE DOES IT TOO SO STOP PICKING ON US HUH and completely ruined your post

[Esternial]

Because they're written by people, silly.

[Souseiseki]

I doubt foreign books are much better, anyway... do British students learn all about how valuable the fucking Falklands are?

we learned about the wars of scottish independence and how prejudice was totally a bad thing and hitler, no falklands ):

i can't tell if you're trying to ask if the falklands are ignored which proves their bias or the importance of the falklands are inflated which proves their bias and what did that sentence even mean

[Esternial]

Well, if you want to believe whatever history books spoon feed you and don't have a single point of critical or independent thought, then that's your own problem.

My history classes were more about what we could learn from those days and how the situation was. We had direct sources, pictures of historical texts in our book and so forth. Hell, the entire textbook was filled with pictures of the sources. Then we had to read those text and give our own interpretation of them, and our exam was basically our teacher evaluating those interpretations and seeing of they're at all plausible.

Any school that just wants its students to mindlessly study history is a horrible excuse of a school. Teachers should teach history just for the sake of teaching history and showing how great your country is, they should have their students think independently and interpret history for themselves. Saying "this is how it went" without even a single source is abominable.

[Forge Alfa-Niner-Six]

EVERY nation's history textbooks lie. The most egregious examples I've seen are the Japanese history books. Why don't you go take a look at those before finding yet another excuse to slam Americans.

you were doing pretty well with this post, starting off with facts and a good anecdotal example, then you delved into SO EVERYONE DOES IT TOO SO STOP PICKING ON US HUH and completely ruined your post

Picking on us? I'm not an American. Looks like you've ruined your own post with a silly assumption. Good game, bro.

[Souseiseki]

you were doing pretty well with this post, starting off with facts and a good anecdotal example, then you delved into SO EVERYONE DOES IT TOO SO STOP PICKING ON US HUH and completely ruined your post

Picking on us? I'm not an American. Looks like you've ruined your own post with a silly assumption. Good game, bro.

oh, then that makes "finding yet another excuse to slam Americans." look even worse. the fact that you aren't american and we need to change SO EVERYONE DOES IT TOO SO STOP PICKING ON US HUH to SO EVERYONE DOES IT TOO SO STOP PICKING ON U.S. HUH doesn't really change that fact that train of logic is still kinda ridiculous.

[Forge Alfa-Niner-Six]

Picking on us? I'm not an American. Looks like you've ruined your own post with a silly assumption. Good game, bro.

oh, then that makes "finding yet another excuse to slam Americans." look even worse. the fact that you aren't american and we need to change SO EVERYONE DOES IT TOO SO STOP PICKING ON US HUH to SO EVERYONE DOES IT TOO SO STOP PICKING ON U.S. HUH doesn't really change that fact that train of logic is still kinda ridiculous.

I think somebody needs to be decaffeinated.

[Gauthier]

Textbooks are going to get more slanted, and that's because school boards are turning more rigidly conservative in its membership. Get enough conservative school boards pushing the textbook publishers and the Civil War is going to be relabelled "The War of Northern Aggression".

[Priory Academy USSR]

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.

Except you were the attacking country. Going by your definition, it was a glorious Canadian, and later British, victory (which, IIRC, is a view some Canadians hold.).

[Pope Joan]

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

Yes, I'm sure the UK and Russia and Israel and in particular La France pull the same kind of stunts.

What's the use of being in charge if you can't rewrite the stories about your side of things?

[Wikkiwallana]

Because Texas writes most of the school books in this country.

[Costa Mayo]

First of all most of that is actually foreign history, American history books are usually more focused on domestic history books or else it wouldn't be American history at all. Secondly, this is VERY GENERALIZED.

My seventh grade and sophomore year history books practically put the French and Spanish up on a pedestal for helping us in the Revolution. My freshman year history book had a chapter on Vietnam, with an entire section devoted the aftermath. My current history book praises the other Allies.

Besides, there are probably history books like this ALL OVER the world. Last year a foreign exchange student named Pasha Melnakova from Russia came to my school and he was shocked when he learned about World War II and the Cold War because the Russians were blatantly selective with what they wanted to teach their kids about Russian history

Also, something I'd like to adress: "America doesn't thank the British for anything, anyway". Could you give me some solid examples

[New Octopucta]

Yes, American textbooks are biased, as are British textbooks, French textbooks, Russian textbooks, Chinese textbooks, Japanese textbooks, etc. However, the examples you listed are covered in just about every American history class in America.

Except you were the attacking country. Going by your definition, it was a glorious Canadian, and later British, victory (which, IIRC, is a view some Canadians hold.).

Right. Because the US decided to attack the British out of the blue. They certainly didn't have any reasons for doing so, and the war obviously didn't resolve any of those reasons.

[Ethel mermania]

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

Yes, I'm sure the UK and Russia and Israel and in particular La France pull the same kind of stunts.

What's the use of being in charge if you can't rewrite the stories about your side of things?

churhills quote comes to mind "history shall be kind to me, for i intend to write it."

but my hs textbooks on the topics mentioned in the OP were all reasonably well covered. internal us history, the gilded age, unions, and populist movements were skimmed over.

[ALMF]

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?

Simple, the Texas School Bord and the ideologies behind it.

[Gauthier]

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?

Simple, the Texas School Bord and the ideologies behind it.

Give it a few years and every textbook will read like a FOXNews article.

[Rereumrari]

Mine never said anything like that. You probably have a bad history book, but I wouldn't consider that a reflection on America in general.

[Herador]

Mine never did anything like what the OP described. Mind, sometimes they skirted around some of the harder truths of American involvement in world history (Vietnam, Iran-Contra, Trail of Tears, etc.) but the teacher of the class always went out of their way to impress on us just how horrible these events really were.

[Acrainia]

My history books were actually quite good, decent history teachers however are few and far between.

American text books do tend to soften some of the the less tasteful parts of American history, but I'm fairly certain that is a problem hardly exclusive to the US.

[Vetalia]

Except you were the attacking country. Going by your definition, it was a glorious Canadian, and later British, victory (which, IIRC, is a view some Canadians hold.).

I actually forgot about that, as a matter of fact. You learn something new every day.

[Manahakatouki]

I wouldn't worry about it, Canadian textbooks do similar things...

Though of course, ours is more about proving a point that we do things in World Wars, and keeping the attention of all the American History buffs in Canadian History class so they don't ditch...

For instance, the battles of WW1 that were fought mainly by Canada are in there considerably, but other major battles by the French or Russians are kinda overlooked...