Why do American history books lie?

[Baltenstein]

In all fairness, if you ask an average German about the Duma, the Sejm or the Palazzo di Montecitorio, chances are he doesn't know what you're talking about either.

That's not all fair given that none of those have played the backdrop to historical events in the same manner as the Reichstag has.

My point is that memorizing foreign names in foreign languages is more challenging than it sounds. I'm sure many people can name more historical facts when being asked about the German parliament than when being asked about the Reichstag.

[Laerod]

That's not all fair given that none of those have played the backdrop to historical events in the same manner as the Reichstag has.

My point is that memorizing foreign names in foreign languages is more challenging than it sounds. I'm sure many people can name more historical facts when being asked about the German parliament than when being asked about the Reichstag.

Maybe, but the chance of an American having heard of the Reichstag Fire is a lot higher than than of a German having heard of the Sejm, Duma, or Palazzo di Montecitorio, so it's not quite comparable.

[Lowell Leber]

My point is that memorizing foreign names in foreign languages is more challenging than it sounds. I'm sure many people can name more historical facts when being asked about the German parliament than when being asked about the Reichstag.

Maybe, but the chance of an American having heard of the Reichstag Fire is a lot higher than than of a German having heard of the Sejm, Duma, or Palazzo di Montecitorio, so it's not quite comparable.

Not so sure about that: I am an American and I remember learning about the Russian Duma before I knew the history of the Reichstag. I guess that could be because some of my education was tainted by the Cold War and my America's obsession with the Soviet Union and/or Russia...

[The Fourth Khaganate]

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

Well, the original mandate going in was to defend South Korea, and it was defended, even if the North Korean state still exists today.

[Mexiclando]

They seem to be biased towards the other side to they somehow forget, Indians fought back against the whites often quite Viciously (look up the Seminoles) there were several Black slave holding families and the Church not only did not attempt to quash education it actually founded some major University's like Oxford and Paris U among others things, While including disputed stories like the Trung sisters rebellion.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

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

Well, the original mandate going in was to defend South Korea, and it was defended, even if the North Korean state still exists today.

Exactly. The point was not to crush Nk and China, the point was to ensure the SK state could exist. Which it does.
Anyone who says otherwise has no idea what the hell the war was actually about.

[Laerod]

Maybe, but the chance of an American having heard of the Reichstag Fire is a lot higher than than of a German having heard of the Sejm, Duma, or Palazzo di Montecitorio, so it's not quite comparable.

Not so sure about that: I am an American and I remember learning about the Russian Duma before I knew the history of the Reichstag. I guess that could be because some of my education was tainted by the Cold War and my America's obsession with the Soviet Union and/or Russia...

So by your own admission, you're not a statistically representative average American?

[The Tiger Kingdom]

Not so sure about that: I am an American and I remember learning about the Russian Duma before I knew the history of the Reichstag. I guess that could be because some of my education was tainted by the Cold War and my America's obsession with the Soviet Union and/or Russia...

So by your own admission, you're not a statistically representative average American?

Who is, though?

[Lowell Leber]

Not so sure about that: I am an American and I remember learning about the Russian Duma before I knew the history of the Reichstag. I guess that could be because some of my education was tainted by the Cold War and my America's obsession with the Soviet Union and/or Russia...

So by your own admission, you're not a statistically representative average American?

I am 29, at my age am a statistically representative average American? Not being an ass, I do not know if I am or not? God, I hope I am not getting that old...

[Ikigain]

because you're an asshole who should get cancer

[Alleniana]

I'm from Australia, haven't heard of half these things...but I'm 13

I wouldn't be able to tell you much about the average Australian, but the books are good. They are often more eurocentric than not, but overall, they're ok.

[Underboot]

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?

Totally avoiding the question of whether any particular school teaches patriotism for the moment... it sounds very much like whoever chose your school's required reading (at least the history textbook) is an affiliate marketer. They probably got a sweet deal on every sale of a book thrown together by some idiot in his spare time, instead of choosing the one best suited for the purpose.

Such things happen, unfortunately. As someone mentioned on the first page, you might want to pay attention to who makes the decisions for your school and have words with them.

[Lowell Leber]

because you're an asshole who should get cancer

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

[Laerod]

So by your own admission, you're not a statistically representative average American?

I am 29, at my age am a statistically representative average American? Not being an ass, I do not know if I am or not? God, I hope I am not getting that old...

Well, technically it's irrelevant. The question is whether the average American is more likely to have heard of the Reichstag (which I predict they probably will have given WWII and Hitler's rise to power being likely candidates for inclusion in a curriculum) than the average German to have heard of the Sejm, Duma, or Palazzo di Montecitorio.

[Lowell Leber]

I am 29, at my age am a statistically representative average American? Not being an ass, I do not know if I am or not? God, I hope I am not getting that old...

Well, technically it's irrelevant. The question is whether the average American is more likely to have heard of the Reichstag (which I predict they probably will have given WWII and Hitler's rise to power being likely candidates for inclusion in a curriculum) than the average German to have heard of the Sejm, Duma, or Palazzo di Montecitorio.

I misunderstood your previous post, my apologies.

[Merriwhether]

(I'll be posting here as soon as I get to my computer. Just had to post so I could find the thread again later, in the "view your posts" link)

[Kitengenia]

Well, I'm sure many history books lie, also in other countries.


I don't think it will be nice when we come to the 2nd world war next year because I just know what it will be about here in Germany:

"Evil Germany attacks Poland"
"Holocaust"
"Evil Germany attacks France"
"Holocaust"
"Evil Germany attacks Russia"
"Holocaust"

I'm pretty sure we won't go into detail about why certain countries sided with us or why Hitler really came into power or Mussolini. Maybe we even let out 3 thirds of the war like I did there. I think it will just be about how evil Germany was and of course the Holocaust since we seem to have to talk about it every year AGAIN.

[Fanaglia]

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.

What state you're from does make a big deal. I'm from Ohio, for example, and I can tell you that our high school history books had all the same flaws that the OP listed and more (like, for example, at least his mentioned the Korean War). The difference, though, was that my teacher (AP US history, junior year, 2005) warned us that our book was horrible from the start, that we would only be using it as a guide, and that half of what was in it was nothing more than propaganda that we could ignore. So, really, in the case of poor textbooks (which is common, at least here in the midwest), the key is good vs. bad teachers.

Of course, my history teacher stood out as one of the good teachers. For an example of average teaching at my school, our entire sex education was pretty much "This is a picture of a penis infected with gono-herpo-syphil-AIDS. You WILL catch this. Boys, your penis WILL fall off, and girls, you WILL get pregnant and the baby will give you AIDS. Abstinence is the ONLY safe sex."

[Cannot think of a name]

For instance, they make wild assumptions about things others know and their experiences in education?

However, someone going to school in Missouri now will have a better insight into current American education than most people that went to school twenty or more years ago.

Fair.

[Forsher]

I can quite honestly say that we've gone over one thing on that list. (We did a whole term's worth of work on Vietnam, needless to say I was quite bored of it by the time Saigon fell. And then I chose to do NZ's involvement so huge chunks of it weren't relevant.) But, then, aside from that none of it is part of the topics studied in my school which differ significantly to those in other schools. This from a country with a national curriculum and an absence of states... so imagine how different things are (between schools) in the US? That said, there's a strong NCEA rejectionist sentiment.

The reason for this is that a lot of things aren't suitable for what the standards want.

Examine causes and consequences of a significant historical event.

That's the instruction.

Throughout history, major forces, and movements have influenced significant historical events. These significant historical events include:

• the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand
  
• Battle of Te Ika-a-Ranginui (1825)
  
• the Russian Revolution (1917)
  
• establishment of the Kingitanga
  
• the establishment of the Women’s Franchise League (Britain)
  
• the opening up of Japan to the West
  
• passing of New Zealand’s anti-nuclear legislation
  
• the 1911 Revolution in China
  
• the Cultural Revolution in China
  
• the coming to power of the Nazis
  
• the uprising in Hungary
  
• establishment of the National Council of Women (New Zealand)
  
• the Tet Offensive in Vietnam
  
• creation of the state of Israel
  
• the Holocaust
  
• the Cuban Missile Crisis
  
• the American Revolutionary War
  
• the fall of Constantinople
  
• the defeat of Napoleon Bonaparte

Those are suggested topics. The one in bold is the one I chose to do, as it happened. But, in theory, I could've done the Tet Offensive and drawn from what we did in our Vietnam topic. (Source.)

However, it is possible to view the lower level equivalent. That is, what I did last year.

Describe the causes and consequences of an historical event.

Already we can see that the basic nature is the same, it's just that less is asked of a candidate.

Context	Event(s)
Black Civil Rights	Montgomery Bus Boycott, The Birmingham Campaign
New Zealand in the World since 1945	1981 Springbok Tour
Race Relations in New Zealand	1975 Land March
The Origins of WWII	Signing of the Treaty of Versailles, The Munich Agreement

That's reflected in the manner that the suggested topics (I could've done something like the North African Campaign, which is largely American free for a few years, because I'd studied it in the year as well).

Now, we did Black Civil Rights, The Springbok Tour (barely) and the Origins of WWII. Being the good little European history lover that I am, I chose to do the WWII one. However, the event was, and this is how I phrased it on the day, "the Outbreak of World War Two." (Source.)

However, this really shows my age... just a year after that exam, there are no suggested topics, at all. So, you've got to remember that time is a factor.

Now, prior to 2002, NCEA didn't exist. Anyone at school before then, going to my school (entirely possible, it's a few decades old) would have quite a different school experience to me. In fact, anyone doing Level Two in 2011 would have a different experience again to both me and the hypothetical 2002 student (although, that may have been when the roll out was started not completed in which case it should be 2003). The proof of that lies here.

Anyone interested in going further should start here and here. The first is what one had to do in the second example while the second is a review of how I and my peers did. From what I've seen, NZQA took some of that stuff and applied it to this year's level one candidates.

To get back to the point, I have used an example of a country quite different to the US as proof of why we are seeing differences between the OP's experience and the experiences of a number of students. I completely agree with Laerod's observation which I've quoted below. However, I feel (as I've described above) that allowances must be made for geography. That is to say, variance even between those in the same time based setting.

For instance, they make wild assumptions about things others know and their experiences in education?

However, someone going to school in Missouri now will have a better insight into current American education than most people that went to school twenty or more years ago.

With regards to the quality of the textbook's we had, they seemed to be entirely geared towards what we actually had to do. That is to say, despite their love of affair with David Low there was a very good reason why we weren't seein the Eastern Front and such in them. Either that, or I've been successfully indoctrinated. Given that I've just linked to many NZQA documents, I'll let you make your own minds.*

*Note, NZQA does not create our textbooks. And I'm being unfair to David Low, he was his day's Rod Emmerson. Although, I must confess, my confidence in his first name is not what it once was.

[Arumdaum]

You cover these things in AP World History where I live.

But our regular World History class... *sigh*

[Forsher]

My point is that memorizing foreign names in foreign languages is more challenging than it sounds. I'm sure many people can name more historical facts when being asked about the German parliament than when being asked about the Reichstag.

Maybe, but the chance of an American having heard of the Reichstag Fire is a lot higher than than of a German having heard of the Sejm, Duma, or Palazzo di Montecitorio, so it's not quite comparable.

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...

I am 29, at my age am a statistically representative average American? Not being an ass, I do not know if I am or not? God, I hope I am not getting that old...

Well, technically it's irrelevant. The question is whether the average American is more likely to have heard of the Reichstag (which I predict they probably will have given WWII and Hitler's rise to power being likely candidates for inclusion in a curriculum) than the average German to have heard of the Sejm, Duma, or Palazzo di Montecitorio.

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

[Ikigain]

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

[Laerod]

Maybe, but the chance of an American having heard of the Reichstag Fire is a lot higher than than of a German having heard of the Sejm, Duma, or Palazzo di Montecitorio, so it's not quite comparable.

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...

Well, technically it's irrelevant. The question is whether the average American is more likely to have heard of the Reichstag (which I predict they probably will have given WWII and Hitler's rise to power being likely candidates for inclusion in a curriculum) than the average German to have heard of the Sejm, Duma, or Palazzo di Montecitorio.

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.)

[The Archregimancy]

For the same reason that all historical documents have distorted the 'truth' since the dawn of recorded history, I would imagine.