I think that writing about this book on Martin Luther King Jr. Day is particularly appropriate. After all, one of the books primary themes is the racism that pervades American history (although not American history textbooks) and, due to the way American history is taught, the classroom today.

Sharon (my totally cool aunt) has been raving about this book for years. When she recommended it for this year's book list, I immediately added it. Another Christmas gift, I started it as soon as I finished last week's book. For history (which is by far my least favorite subject - a situation this book addresses at length), the book was a surprisingly quick read.

James W. Loewen has an axe to grind it seems. He wrote a revisionist history text for the state of [insert southern state here - I know, I know - I honestly just can't remember - I think it was Mississippi] that was rejected by the selection board because it didn't paint a happy picture of the history of the state. He took the board to court and won, but this book seems to be attempting to show the problems related to high school history texts.

This book has been particularly interesting to me at this time in my life, because I spend a lot of time thinking about the way we talk about the past. Sarah and I have spent countless hours talking our liberal-speak about art history, literary history and American history. Heck, one of Sarah's life goals is to revise the way we talk about the history of art.

One of the things I find particularly interesting about this book is that Sharon recommended it. While she doesn't align herself with a particular political party, she is far more conservative than I. I would have said that this book takes a stance that would be more friendly to the liberal camp. I think it is hard to argue against this book (how do you argue that it is a good thing to tell blatant lies to high schoolers?), although it would certainly seem that people have tried.

I found it disturbing when Loewen articulated the bases for approval that many textbook boards use. They were things like creates a sense of pride in America or doesn't single out individual racial groups. How can you tell American history without identifying racial groups when so much of our history is the disenfranchisement and enslavement of racial groups? And why should American history create a sense of pride? Are we just trying to create patriot-bots?

I still can't say that history will be a favorite subject of mine (although church history is my favorite part of seminary - go figure), but this book made me want to change the way children learn American history. That or homeschool Alliclaus.