Chapter 11 Summary: Why Is History Taught Like This?
“When you are publishing a book, if there’s something that is controversial, it’s better to take it out.” –
Holt, Rinehart
Loewen starts the chapter by stating that even though we see problems with textbooks year after year,
and they come out with new editions year after year, they do not change. Textbook authors write with
students in mind, as well as the general public, and historians and professors. They do not want to
“arouse” the public and be controversial. Loewen argues that textbooks still follow this American Legion
ideal: “must inspire the children with patriotism, must be careful to tell the truth optimistically, must
dwell on failure only for its value as a moral lesson, must speak chiefly of success, must give each State
and Section full space and value for the achievements of each” (pg 265). Loewen says this is the
ideology textbooks follow. This may be true, I’m not sure what I believe, but I felt there was a lot of
analysis and questioning in my history text, and maybe that was a feature of the teacher and not the
text, but it’s definitely something to think about.
Loewen provides several different reasons that texts present this skewed representation. He concedes
that history is massive and would be impossible to cover everything; his contention is with what texts
choose to leave in and what to take out. Some reasons texts are biased may be because historians are
from privileged, white families, an upper-class conspiracy, personal judgment, to control elements of
society, publishers and the state. It’s difficult to know each of the different parties agendas and motives
for wanting history to be presented in a certain light, but all of these different groups go into the
creation of a text, and you can hardly say they are always objective. Some publishers want to represent
all the different groups in society because they know those groups will be the ones reading them. “One
author told me that she was the single parent of an eleven-year-old girl when she started working on
her textbook. She ‘wanted to write a book Samantha would be proud of.’ Rather she wanted a book that
would make her daughter feel good about America, a very different angle”(pg. 279). I agree that these
agenda are going to create texts that are not objective, and this should not be the way education works,
however I wonder if Loewen wants history to be skewed in the other direction. Does he want a negative
representation, or a balance? Surely there can be a balance. There are achievements to be proud of and
learn from, and there are colossal failures to focus on and really learn from.
Loewen leaves us (teachers) with one of his most important messages: “Relying on textbooks makes it
easier for both parties, teachers and students to put forth minimal effort” (pg. 283).