I've included a number of discussion questions, please respond to the ones that you really like (i.e. don't feel like you have to answer
all of them.
Introduction
The introduction to the book gives us a look into the motivations the author had hen wrote this book. He makes a number of claims, a number of which I think warrants some examination or discussion:
1. History is unique amongst high school subjects as its generally disliked and uninformative (and as a result students must unlearn in college what they learned in high school.)
2. The way history is taught is inferior: disconnected from the present, overly optimistic, moral signalling on patriotism, taught as memorisation.
3. History textbooks are terrible.
Discussion Questions for the Introduction:
1. Do you agree with any of Loewen's claims in the introduction? Did you have experiences in high school (or college) that run counter to his claims?
2. Loewen's book was originally published in 1995, and updated every few years until now. Do you feel his criticisms of history instruction have been eroded or should have changed, i.e. do you feel he may be ignoring advances in his 2018 revision because he's attached to his conclusions originally published in 1995?
3. What was your relationship with history (as a course subject) when you started reading this book? Did you like history in school? Do you study it on your own for fun?
Chapter 1
Chapter 1 is dominated by the discussion of two contemporary historical figures: Helen Keller and Woodrow Wilson, and goes on to illustrate some of the problems with how history is presented in secondary education in the US.
Discussion Questions
1. Loewen cites Helen Keller as an example of a historical figure who is reduced to unidimensionality and then treated as an ideal, motivated in large part by her socialist leanings as an adult. Do you know of any other historical figures (especially women) who have been conveniently reduced in this fashion? Why do you think they have been given the reductionist treatment both specifically as a person, but generally as a figure?
2. Loewen discusses the reasons history is narrowed in history textbooks and courses, and he judges the motivations to be all around bad. As a society and culture, what do we stand to lose from treating history this way? Now, a little juicier: as a society and culture, what do we stand to
gain from treating history this way?
3. Woodrow Wilson is clearly portrayed as a spheres-of-influence type diplomat in this chapter. Do you agree? Do you find it hard to reconcile all the good things you heard about him before reading Chapter 1 with all the bad things you read about him in that chapter (I mean here having to treat a historical figure as a human being rather than an ideal or a simple "good" or "bad").
4. Loewen ascribes a lot of the racial climate both culturally and politically to Woodrow Wilson's position on non-Whites, citing a number of bills passed and policies enacted. Do you feel that claim is warranted? Does the president signal moral cues that allow people to act out their racism both then and now? The president of the US can be thought of as the head of both state and government. In countries where the head of state isn't the head of government (e.g. the UK where the queen is the head of state, and the PM, Teresa May, is the head of government). Do you feel distilling the two roles into a single office makes the transition from cultural sentiment to law more efficient? And if more or less efficient, is this desirable?
5. The Espionage and Sedition Acts were both passed into law during the First Red Scare in the US (1917-1921), and Loewen cites Wilson's use of his new Postmaster General to suppress mail for its ideological content. The suppression itself sound outrageous, but we also live in a time where email in the US can be easily accessed by the government for "surveillance". Does privacy trump security here? Do you feel like the suppression of mail on the internet is a major problem (if it were to happen)?
6. I have often heard of something called "the Disney version" meaning it has been whitewashed or sanitised for general consumption. However, a lot of classic Disney stories have come recurrent, (and not altogether ideal) situations: parents being dead/killed/absent, someone/thing evil trying to kill the main character, etc.). Do you feel saying "the Disney version" is warranted?