Greg Sarris, the author of the book The Grand Avenues where the essay “Lies my teacher told me” is featured, has been known for his enthusiasm in putting different phenomenal essays together in one focused volume. He truly believes in the possibility of affecting the lives of the American people through the his collection of writings from different perspectives. On the other hand, James W.
Loewen, the author of the essay “Lies my teacher told me” is a sociologist-historian that has a particular enthusiasm in exposing the faulty ideas that are consistently taught in schools.The studies that he conducted have finally resulted to one particular conclusion: that most of what is taught about American history is fraudulent. His essay seeks to expose these misconceptions and deceptions. About the Essay This essay particularly discusses the confusion for the students which this type of teaching produces.
They do not really know what to believe. To some, history may not be that important, but sociologists such as Loewen believe that the history of a particular country makes a strong impact its present and the future.The society must occasionally take stock of how issues were dealt with in the past and use those issues to learn how to deal with the present and how to create foundations for the future. Because students represent the future of a society, their cultural and the social understanding is vital to its success. Certainly form this point on, it could be noticed that the more accurately history is taught to young students, the more it becomes possible for the present and the future of a country to become considerably more successful for the generations to come.
Content and SummaryHow do historians check the accuracy of older writings? They compare these with such things as old tax records, law codes, advertisements for slave auctions, business and private letters and records, inscriptions on pottery shards, ships’ logs, and items found in tombs and graves. This miscellany often sheds additional light on official writings. Where gaps or uncertainties remain, good historians will usually say so, even though they might offer their own theories to fill the gaps. In any case, wise readers consult more than one reference if they seek a balanced interpretation of history.In spite of all the challenges that the historian faces, his work can have much to offer. One history book explains: “Hard as it is to write, .
. . world history is important, even essential, to us. ” Besides providing a window on the past, history can broaden our understanding of the present human condition. Society soon discovers, for instance, that the ancients displayed the same human traits that people display today. These recurring traits have had a major impact on history, perhaps leading to the popular saying that history repeats itself.
But is that a sound generalization?The essay particularly focuses on the different types of inaccuracies that are taught to the students of American schools. Most likely, this refers to certain unmentioned events that might put so-called historical heroes into a shameful light. Generally only the positive aspects of these individuals are taught with out any information that might create contradiction. Sometimes history is not just biased but doctored.
The former Soviet Union, for instance, “expunged the name Trotsky from the record, so that the fact of the commissar’s existence disappeared,” says the book Truth in History.Who was Trotsky? He was a leader in the Russian Bolshevik Revolution and was second only to Lenin. After Lenin’s death, Trotsky clashed with Stalin, was expelled from the Communist Party and later murdered. His name was even purged from Soviet encyclopedias. Similar distortions of history, even to the point of burning nonconforming books, have been a regular practice of many dictatorial regimes. Doctoring history, however, is an ancient practice, dating back at least as far as Egypt and Assyria.
Proud and vain, pharaohs, kings, and emperors ensured that their historical legacy was flattering.So achievements were routinely exaggerated, while anything embarrassing or dishonorable, such as defeat in warfare, was played down, erased, or sometimes not even reported. In sharp contrast, the history of Israel recorded in the Bible includes both the failures and the glories of kings and subjects alike. Critical Analysis Historians are more like detectives than scientists. They investigate, question, and challenge records from the past.
They aim for truth, but their target is often indistinct.Part of the reason is that their work is largely about people, and historians cannot read minds—especially the minds of the dead. Historians may also have preconceived ideas and prejudices. Hence, sometimes the best work is really an interpretation—from the writer’s own perspective. In this particular noted work of Loewen, it could be seen that the omitted parts of historical notes certainly affects the way history is presented to society, especially to the students. It is also through this writing that one particular fraud in history has been noted that has a great impact in the present society today.
One consistently recurring lesson of history is the failure of human rulership. In all ages, good government has constantly been foiled by self-interest, shortsightedness, greed, corruption, nepotism, and especially the lust to obtain and retain power. Hence, the past is littered with arms races, failed treaties, wars, social unrest and violence, the unfair distribution of wealth, and collapsed economies. Because of this particular truth, rewriting human history every now and then has created questionable accounts of written historical works.The very thought of “rewriting history” upsets many people.
They consider it a dishonest attempt to manipulate the past to fit a current theory or to glorify one nation, race or religion. Is that the case? Yes, it is—sometimes. The record of man’s past has been “rewritten” on occasions in order to fit certain political or religious ideologies. But this is not always so. There are also circumstances under which history should be revised.
One particular problem, surprisingly, is the superabundance of material facing the modern writer; this can act as a barrier to his research.It is humanly impossible for him to comb through all the information available on some subjects. At the same time, paradoxically, very basic material regarding events of even relatively recent times is often missing or is unclear in meaning. Yes, as these examples show, just gathering the “facts” alone makes the modern historian’s challenge a large one.
Suppose any one of the points here mentioned could be resolved. It would be necessary to rewrite history in that light. But at times the history books must be adjusted for other reasons. Time may cause nations and people to develop new viewpoints toward the past.Through diplomacy and trade agreements former enemies become allies. The perspective from which the past is examined shifts and history books and monuments written at an earlier period may come to sound out-of-date or harsh.
What once seemed bad, with the passing of time, may seem good. History is then often rewritten to fit a later reality. Overall Reaction The usual tendency when rewriting history in an effort to support a certain view is to pick and choose information, finding that which paints a noble picture of the writer’s side of the story.This is somewhat like the method of a clever lawyer who sifts through evidence and selects only the material that will benefit his client while ignoring or suppressing other information.
When this pick and choose spirit dominates, the rewritten version of history is likely to be as lopsided as an earlier one. Then, if a person reads one nation’s history book he will likely get one impression but when he reads from another country will give an entirely different view. The person reading history and trying to be as objective as is possible appreciates that all sides—Germans and Poles, Europeans and Africans—have a story to tell.He knows that there is ordinarily a degree of correctness in each view.
But he also is aware that, to arrive anywhere near the truth, he properly must counterbalance one history against its opposite. Most historians point to something impersonal, which they call historical forces, and say that these are responsible for what has occurred. But why have historical forces done so much damage, created so much trouble and unrest when ordinarily people prefer peace and calm? Men’s theories of history, though they bulge library shelves to the point of overburden, have produced no really satisfying answers to that question.
