Ha! This guy would have hated my high school US history class. I lived outside the continental US, and my teacher believed in objective history. It's very interesting when you look at the revolutionary war and the civil war in that manner.

History class isn't a time to bash or be overly smug about America. It's a time to learn things about our past that are true to the best of our knowledge, and to put what we've learned into perspective in such a way that it gives us a more complete picture of who we are and where we're going based on our past, so that we can figure out where we should be going. That includes learning about both the mistakes we've made, so that we can endeavor not to repeat them, and about the great things we've done, so that we can endeavor to keep the spirit of that greatness alive.

Oh, and history class should also be a time to learn about world history (at least in my opinion). The same benefits of learning American history--perspective and understanding--apply even more to learning world history.

In my experience through high school and college, the history teachers were the only conservatives. I've also heard anecdotally that if there is a conservative in the school, he teaches history. Has that been the case for anyone else?

Frankly, if my history books were liberal, it wouldn't have mattered as my teachers were so strongly conservative.

I agree Jude! :truestory:

I need a nap...

The charge about history books has always been that they're written by the winners - this guy just hijacked liberal complaints so he could write something to get him on Fox News.
I've never heard anyone say that Oswald shot Kennedy because he was a Marine and I don't think any scholar of any political persuasion would have any respect for that idea - he'd have to produce the classroom history book that allegedly makes that claim.

I wish we could all learn history more objectively and be allowed to talk about it instead of regurgitating the bias of the textbooks and our teachers. Give me the facts!

Yeah steph the marine claim is way off base and doesn't even make any sense.

Beavis never thought about that! I do remember all except one were!
Mr. Espinoso was a dem. and dreamy...
sorry has to throw that in!

I am mad at myself for not taking his classes in college! It was extremely difficult to find conservative professors at UD (like at every college, I'm sure). And I had one at my disposal and never took his classes. I'm going to look up what he teaches.

I think there is a lot of bias in how they teach history (for example: FDR was a hero who pulled us out of the Great Depression with his New Deal!), but I'm not sure this book does the best job of displaying that bias. Some of the things listed here are either things I never heard, or come off as nit-picky. I do think there is too much effort to drill certain things into our heads, while other things are completely ignored.

Funny that i never learned any "liberal" theories about history until i took college classes on HOW history has been taught (and the seedy side of it!).

Anyway, i never learned about any American history past the Civil Rights movement in school and i went to both public and private schools. I always hated how i didn't know anything past 1965.

I agree. U.S. History classes are too pro-America and cheat students (like myself) of a real education. Not sure about this guy's book, though. If you want a good book that talks about this (and counters some "historical" myths), I would suggest reading "Lies My Teacher Told Me." It was written in 1994, but is still pretty relevant today, I think.

I never heard most of these so I can't say much. I was lucky to learn history for the most part, as unbiased and objectively as my teachers were able- as a matter of fact our teachers made sure to show us pros and cons of each side. We also did two years of global history (which still was not enough for me but 2 out of 4 years is pretty darn good compared to others I am guessing?).

What part of His Story don't people get. History is told from the persepective of "man" and can't be absent of any bias.

sorry didn't finishe my thought....

What part of His Story don't people get. History is told from the persepective of "man" and can't be absent of any bias. Which would then require the reader to question what they are reading, and the teacher to encourage open discussion of the reading materials. Anyone who believes everything they read even at school age may be lacking in some skills they will need later on in life.

I remember learning in elementary school that Lincoln fought the Civil War to free the slaves and Columbus was a hero and we made the Nina, the Pinta, and the Santa Maria every year out of paper. Of course at that age it's tough to teach nuance and gray areas, but I honestly think most high school students really lack the ability to look at different perspectives and see history as constantly open to interpretation. My high school US history teacher used to bemoan how no one in the class would think. He once told us that NATO stood for North Across the Ocean as a joke and about half the class wrote that down! I think most kids don't care and teacher go the path of least resistance. It's sad to me because I love history and I think it's interesting how historical events are looked a differently through the filter of current events and how easy it is for 2 people to come up with 2 completely opposite interpretations. But I guess I'm a nerd, lol.

I guess my whole point is that if someone is trying to find the "real truth" about history they will be looking for a long time because it doesn't exist. I agree with Stephley that this is just a ploy to get on Fox News.

I was never taught any of these things so I'm not sure what his complaint is.

If you go to Amazon.com, it gets even more ridiculous.

"Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation only because he needed black soldiers"

Yeah. Not what I was taught.

"Truman ordered the bombing of Hiroshima to intimidate the Soviets with “atomic diplomacy”"

Again, not what I was taught.

I don't think anybody has been consistently taught to hate America the way this man seems to believe we all have been. I think he may have manipulated passages in those history books so that he could write his book.

This book makes me sad.

Heh, I went to a DODD school in Okinawa, Japan. As far as U.S. history goes, I don't remember most of the 'liberal lies' being taught. It was rather pro-America and heavily WWII-oriented since most of the far east war between Americans and Japanese were fought on my island. I only encountered the 'liberal lies' when I attended U.S. history at the university level in the U.S.

Katrina, agreed. The civil war is taught with just twinges of truth and whole stories.

I must say, I don't think it is a partisan issue. I think it is an issue about certain things wanting to be painted in a rosier light.

Yeah, like this year's election. I think we can safely say that the GOP battled hard and finished second, while the Democratic Party squandered their chances and finished 2nd to last.

*Note* This is assuming a two party system, and it's a joke.

Regarding the idea that history teachers are conservative.

Very interesting, I've never seen it that way. In my high school 2 out of 3 of my history teachers were conservative ... but 2 out of 3 people in the school were conservative came with the territory --small town in OK. (And actually I'm just making an educated guess about them being conservative b/c neither one brought their personal views into the classroom --- I'm going on what I knew of them outside of the class)

If I had ever actually given it the thought I would have seen history teachers as liberal for the most part.

My FIL-to-be is a history teacher and he is pretty liberal (in fact he is that 1 of 3 mentioned above).
I am in school right now for Social Studies Ed. I want to teach American History and I am very liberal.

"It's sad to me because I love history and I think it's interesting how historical events are looked a differently through the filter of current events and how easy it is for 2 people to come up with 2 completely opposite interpretations. But I guess I'm a nerd, lol."
-I agree MM ... and I'm a nerd too

I have two friends who are history teachers. One is super conservative and the other is a liberal, and they teach essentially the same curriculum. I would assume it's because they keep their personal beliefs separate from their professional responsibilities.

This is an interesting book... Being Canadian, I learned my American history in the Canadian school system and am now a history major at a Canadian university. I find it disturbing that these incidences are being purported as "Liberal bias" when really, history is just simply not as straight-forward as we would all like to believe. In all of the cases he lists, there is certainly evidence for and against his positions, it's just that the strongest evidence lays behind that which has made it into our history books. I was under the impression, also, that history has been written strongly pro-American. I recently took an American history class, taught by a British professor. He had also taught in the USA, and joked that when teaching American history to Canadians he had to convince us that Americans weren't as bad as we thought, and when teaching American history to Americans he had to convince them that they were a little worse than they thought. In short, this book disappoints me by making even history partisan. Sad

Wow this dude would have really hated my US History class. We used Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" as our main text.

Though frankly I wasn't taught half of the crap he brings up. I'm not sure what textbook he is getting these "liberal lies" from.

Howard Zinn's book 'The People's history of the United States' is terrific but in no way have I accepted as the absolute definitive book on American history. I cannot believe that anyone would be so silly as to believe what they read in one book, then again people believe the bible while avoiding reading the Torah and Quran or other religious texts.

And I did learn in US History class in High School and College that Mr and Mrs Rosenberg were guilty. There is evidence and testimony to that fact.

Wack - You do realize that the Bible contains the Torah, right?

Wackdoodle I said primary textbook. We did use others and my teacher brought in as many original copies of legal documents as possible. History is always written with bias and perspective, any good teacher/professor knows this.

Oh Wack and I love the Qur'an, the quality of writing is excellent. It is also clearer and more concise than the Bible.

I think history in high school is undoubtedly slanted conservative if anything, maybe once in blue moon the teachers will mention that there are other viewpoints. Mostly, they just teach the book and corresponding lesson plans.

Even if at the beginning of the year they say they're not going to do that and make it interesting or cover lots more and go in depth, it doesn't happen. Basically, I agree with Jude C, Stephley, beavis667, Taadie, and LaLaLaurie06. I have similar stance and experiences.

I still remember writing a paper and saying something different about the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima and my teacher failed me or tried to fail me and accused me of cheating because what I had written had not appeared in the textbook that we use. Granted this was 5+ yrs ago and maybe I did the assignment wrong, maybe I wasn't supposed to use outside sources or make it an opinion piece (which I did).

But it really hurt and scared me too, I wasn't the type of student (or even now) to intentionally cheat or plagiarize and I couldn't help but wonder if it was because he didn't like the tone of my paper. It was after Sept 11th... I feel like I (all of us, or anyone taking US history that year) really came of age in an interesting time when I look back at it.

And some students were the Lisa Ling types (like me), willing and curious and rational enough to ask questions but not Anti American but with strict or conservative history teacher and a White man at that, I don't know if he could open himself to the idea that he or the textbook wasn't truly objective.

Very nice site!