The Observation Deck

Roy,

I wish that I too knew back then, what I know now....(smile)

Or maybe I just think that I know what I know now....(bigger smile)

Textbooks?

Oh, don't get me started on that issue, Roy..

I have VERY strong opinions about history textbooks, and how some of them handled the Native American lessons, for example. (I've been an active supporter of Native American causes for many years)

You might find that we are in complete agreement, or not, depending on the particular topic...

Textbooks, as I mentioned before, have been written to suit various regions of the country and different parts of the world in the past, and frankly, probably still are being written to reflect the polemics of particular situations, such as private schools, certain national points of view, and the like.

Somewhere around the house, I have a neat book about common lies that can be found in some school books.

Textbook writers have quite a challenge these days.

I'm not sure as to whether I'll be able to watch the show today or not, as I've presently got quite a few irons in the fire, but believe me, I am a big fan of being open-minded. (To a point, of course. The older I get, the more it seems I become more and more set in my ways...)

No Roy, I would certainly not wish to laugh at, attack, or ridicule you or anyone else. Having experienced the business end of that sort of behavior as a disabled child, I know full well how that kind of disgusting behavior feels to the one being ostracized.

Roy, you honestly seem to care about life. How could that EVER be something to laugh at?

Enjoyed our exchange, as always.

Roy Pitchford wrote:

Gary Rice wrote:Today, 5PM, Fox News
See how today's textbooks have been stacked against history
I'd like to ask that you be open-minded enough to get past any animosity towards the host.

If you are genuinely interested and can't get to a TV, let me know.

I missed the program. what examples did Fox News present of textbooks being stacked against history?

were any of your own school textbooks presenting historical lies? what were they?

Roy and Ryan,

Oh, by the way everybody..the above supposed "quote" LOOKS LIKE I was the one who suggested that TV show be watched, and it was in fact, Roy who did so!



...See how "history" can (even accidentally) change on a dime? (smile)

I did see a portion of that program, and my take on what I watched was that it seemed to be about an alleged "progressive" bias in school textbooks.

As I've already indicated, I too have had my own issues with many textbooks over the years, on what they might have otherwise included, or perhaps more importantly, left out.

As for so-called "lies", I would simply suggest that you type in "American History lies" into your search engine and just sit back in wonderment. In reality, it's not always so much the outright lies, but the whitewashing, oversimplifications and "stuff left out of stories" that amaze me.

True, you can hair-split history all you want to, but facts are indeed facts...or at least, they SHOULD be...

I guess my central point here, however, would simply be this.. (and it's often been said before)

So often the "winners" end up writing the history books. That's why I believe in the importance of teaching critical thinking and research skills. There are at least 2 sides to every story. For every "progressive slant" that you might find in a textbook, there are probably other sections that may be slanted "conservatively"...or perhaps, to favor some other group, sometimes at the expense of yet another group.

There indeed is a difference between teaching critical thinking and fact-finding skills and mindless indoctrination. I'm certainly glad we live in a country where these kinds of things can be discussed and studied openly.

The internet has made a huge difference, as well, because it is not so easy anymore to present a one-sided argument as being factual. (although one must fact-check even the 'net, for research to be truly valid)

The frustrating thing to me, at the very same time, is that so many people seem to WANT ONLY to hear a one-sided point of view, these days.

The trouble with that sort of thinking, at least to me, is, if we only look at the world through shaded glasses, are we really getting to the truth of the matter, or only someone's "shaded" opinion?

Let's hear it for critical thinking and fact-finding!

Back to the banjo...

Facts may be facts (not that they can't be misrepresented), but what historians try to prove is the cause of the facts, and on this there is always disagreement. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor is a fact, but whether that attack was unprovoked is still a question. Some conclude that it was an attack calculated to destroy a potential enemy that would threaten Japanese interests; others, noting our participation in European activities, even while declaring neutrality, and our economic actions against Japanese industry, make clear that FDR wanted involvement in the war, but needed an event to arouse the American populace, and was pleased with the attack, as it provoked the people into supporting a war. Which is true; I doubt we will ever know, as people don't keep records of ulterior motives.

Publishing textbooks is an expensive undertaking, and I think it is no secret that some states (Texas certainly) exert influence over what will be in the textbooks. For example, if Texas demands that a history book show that UFO's were captured in Nevada, that will go into the textbook, and the other states will either have to teach it, or explain why the text they are using is a bunch of hooey.

If we broke free of the publishing business, and had teachers who could produce a coherent competent text and put it on the internet, we could solve a lot of the problems we have, but we will never be able to tell our students the true cause of events; the best we can do is to explain the conflicting theories of the cause, and I suspect that is a concept that is beyond many high school students.

The schools will always try to present events in the light most favorable to their country. Instances where their country has performed dishonorably are minimized or ignored. I give the US credit in that we are willing to admit our mistakes and try to take some corrective actions. I don't think you will find many countries that will do that, absent a revolution.

Years ago when I was in high school, we were taught that there were a few years of conflict in World War II, but that it was ended when we got involved. Now, I won't minimize the heroics of our fighting forces, but if you read a bit about World War II you will find that the german forces were destroyed almost completely by the Soviets, and that our troops were fighting a weakened enemy. But in a history class, where the Soviet Union is a threat, you don't teach your students that the Soviets were the major cause of the defeat of the Nazis. Teachers in the public schools view themselves as supporters of the nation, and you will not find them teaching a version of history that doesn't support our nation.

The Pearl Harbor attack, like so many other events in American History (like the Kennedy assassination) will probably always be subject to conjecture.

And here I would agree with Will, in that historians often seem to debate these things, and we can't really teach what we do not know for sure.

As for WWII?

Actually, although the Soviets certainly lost many millions of combined civilian and military casualties during WWII, and certainly did carry the concept of total war to the Germans, Americans did suffer thousands of combat deaths in their European operations; (not even including the many thousands of deaths on the Atlantic Ocean from U-boat attacks) so the conquest of Western Europe was by no means a cakewalk for them. (Remember too that there also were the other European Allied combat casualties of Great Britain, France, and other Allied nations) Hitler's Luftwaffe (air force) was certainly weakened, thanks in part to the Soviets, and that certainly helped the Allied advance in Normandy, but there was still plenty of ground fighting in the West to go around for all concerned. Indeed, the Western Allies weathered several serious Luftwaffe late-war air attacks, and these did not even include the secret rocket weapons that were used against them.

(...and of course, there were many, many thousands of German, Italian, and other Axis military and civilian casualties in this total war, as well as the innocent victims of concentration camps, and so many others...)

I do agree with Will to the extent that textbooks have, in the past, sometimes been written with some things being emphasized more than others to satisfy the whims of certain states and nations.

State and National Standards committees, however, have called regional textbook issues into greater focus, these days.

I would say as a personal opinion, based on my own experience in the classroom, that WWII and other conflicts do seem to be treated with some depth and balance in many of our schools these days, with the obvious point needing to be made that there never seems to be enough time to cover these serious types of topics with the depth that they truly deserve.

someone or other said the Russians "bled the Germans dry". I don't remember who, but they were famous.

i recently finished reading "A Bridge too Far" by Cornelius Ryan. He doesn't go much into the Eastern Front, or even Normandy. But shortly after Normandy, there was an hysterical Nazi retreat from Belgium or the Netherlands. The Allies didn't quite manage to take advantage of it.

American Trade policies with Japan did not "Provoke" Japan to bomb Pearl Harbor. We sold Japan plenty of metal and oil while they were gobbling up China and Korea and moving toward indochina. There were american business men selling Japan other stuff right up until december 7th, 1941.

what the Nazis and Imperial Japan both have in common is they made a B-line for the oil. The Soviet Union was Nazi Germany's most important trade partner right up until they decided to go to war. Japan imported a lot from the U.S. Trade never prevents war. trade is just a little syrup for after the war is over.

ryan costa wrote:someone or other said the Russians "bled the Germans dry". I don't remember who, but they were famous.

American Trade policies with Japan did not "Provoke" Japan to bomb Pearl Harbor. We sold Japan plenty of metal and oil while they were gobbling up China and Korea and moving toward indochina. There were american business men selling Japan other stuff right up until december 7th, 1941.

While the US had traded with Japan (a nation that has few natural resources), after Japan invaded Indochina, the US initiated an embargo of iron, steel and mechanical parts. This certainly would have impaired Japan's war efforts (they were already at war with China), and increased pressure on them to either cease their belligerence, or seek new sources of, particularly, iron and steel. I would imagine that they viewed disabling our military capacity as a way of preventing our interference in their quest for the resources they used. As it was, their attack weakened us only for a short while, and ultimately had the opposite effect of what they apparently planned.

I would disagree with what you appear to say about trade. Because resources are distributed unequally around the globe, trade is necessary for almost all nations. It is when trade is interrupted, or made one-sided, that nations consider using war to get the resources they need.

what planet are you from, will? it sounds like a nice place.

Here on Earth things have been different.

multinational corporations usually succeed at lobbying congress to send in the Marines.

Japan was free to buy as much oil and iron from china as china was willing to sell.